Grand Jury final report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Letter to Presiding Judge I
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury Members II
Role of the Grand Jury III
2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Response Requirements & Instructions IV
CITY / COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Agricultural Commissioner 1- 2
City of Orland 3- 4
City of Willows 5- 6
Glenn County Public Libraries 7- 9
Exhibit: Orland Library Budget 10- 13
Local Agency Formation Commission 14- 15
Planning & Development Conflicts - Glenn County & Cities 16- 17
Exhibit: Orland response to proposed Glenn County 18- 23
General Plan Amendment
FINANCE
County / City Property Tax Splits 24- 25
Development Impact Fees 26- 27
Exhibit: Development Impact Fees - Orland/ Willows 28- 33
Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey 34
Grand Jury Copy Machine Lease ( Inland Leasing, Inc.) 35
HEALTH SERVICES
Glenn County Environmental Health 36- 37
Glenn Medical Center ( GMC) 38- 40
PUBLIC SAFETY
Glenn County Jail 41- 42
Glenn County Sheriff’s Department 43- 44
Intruder Alert Procedures 45- 46
Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall 47- 48
Orland Police Department 49- 50
Willows Police Department 51- 52
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
PUBLIC WORKS
Public Facilities Projects 53- 54
Butte City Boat Ramp 55
Fleet Management 56- 57
Exhibit: Title 14 - Fleet Management Policy 58- 64
Glenn County Airports 65- 66
North Willows Storm Drainage 67- 68
Orland Public Works and Infrastructure 69- 70
Willows Public Works and Infrastructure 71
SCHOOLS
Capay Joint Union Elementary School 72- 73
C. K. Price School 74- 75
Elk Creek School 76
Fairview 77- 78
Hamilton Union School District 79
Lake School 80
Murdock Elementary School 81- 82
Plaza School 83
Princeton Elementary School 84- 85
Willows Intermediate School 86
2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY EVALUATION OF
RESPONSES ( 2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report)
04- 02 Board of Supervisors, Golden State Risk Management 87- 88
Authority, City of Orland, All Glenn County Schools
04- 04 Glenn County Assessor, Department of Finance 89
04- 05 Human Resource Agency ( HRA) 90
04- 18 Child Welfare Re- Design of Glenn County Foster Care 91
04- 20 Glenn Medical Center Administration / Glenn County Board 92
Of Supervisors
04- 21 C. K. Price School 93
04- 21 Capay Joint Union Elementary School 94
04- 21 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 95
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
04- 21 Glenn County School Board, Willows Unified School Board, 96
Willows High School, Willows Intermediate School,
Willows Elementary School, Office of Education
04- 21 Hamilton Elementary School 97
04- 21 Hamilton Union School District 98
04- 21 Lake School 99
04- 21 Mill Street School 100
04- 21 Orland Unified School District 101
04- 21 Plaza School 102
04- 21 Princeton Unified School District 103
04- 21 Stoney Creek Unified School District 104
04- 22 Plaza School 105
04- 22 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 106
04- 23 Lake School 107
04- 23 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 108
04- 24 Mill Street School 109
04- 24 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 110
04- 25 Fairview School 111
04- 26 Willows High School 112
04- 26 Willows Superintendent of Schools 113
04- 27 Willows Intermediate School, Office of Education, Glenn 114
County School Board
04- 28 Willows Elementary School, Glenn County School Board, 115
Office of Education
04- 29 Capay School, Office of Education, Glenn County School 116
Board
04- 31 Hamilton Elementary School 117- 118
04- 33 C. K. Price Middle School 119
04- 35 Orland High School, Orland Superintendent of Schools 120- 122
04- 36 Princeton Elementary and High School 123
04- 38 Hamilton High School 124
04- 40 Glenn County Superintendent of Schools 125
04- 42 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 126
04- 43 Willows Superintendent of Schools 127- 128
04- 46 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 129
04- 49 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 130
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
04- 50 Probation Department - Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall 131
04- 53 Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Works 132
04- 54 Department of Public Works 133
04- 56 Glenn County Department of Public Works 134- 135
04- 58 Provident Irrigation District Board of Directors 136
No Response Received As of April 1, 2005
04- 60 Princeton- Cordora- Glenn Irrigation District ( PCGID) 137
No Response Received As of April 1, 2005
04- 61 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 138
04- 62 Glenn County Public Works 139
04- 63 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 140
04- 64 Glenn County Public Works 141
04- 65 Glenn County Public Works 142
04- 66 Glenn County Public Works, Glenn County Board of 143
Supervisors
04- 67 Glenn County Public Works 144
04- 68 Glenn County Public Works 145
04- 69 Glenn County Public Works 146
04- 70 Bayliss Library and Park, Glenn County Public Works 147
Department
04- 71 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 148
2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY
P. O. Box 1023
Willows, Ca. 95988
June 30, 2005
The Honorable Donald Byrd
Presiding Judge
Superior Court, County of Glenn
526 West Sycamore Street
Willows, Ca. 95988
Dear Judge Byrd,
In compliance with California Penal Code, Section 933, the 2004- 2005
Glenn County Grand Jury respectfully submits its Final Report to the Court.
The report consists of the work of six committees: City/ County
Government, Finance, Public Health, Schools, Public Safety, and Public
Works.
The nineteen- member jury made inquiries and investigations and served as a
civil jury considering a variety of complaints.
The Jury expresses its appreciation for the cooperation and assistance
received from the County employees during its interview and investigation
process.
The members of the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury are honored to
have had the opportunity to be of service to our County. We sincerely hope
our efforts are received as a positive contribution.
Sincerely,
Al Calonico, Foreperson
Glenn County Grand Jury, 2004- 2005
I
2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS
Vicki Allen
Robert Banfill
Cynthia Boracci
Mark Brown
William Brown - Sergeant At Arms
Al Calonico - Foreperson
Dennis Champagne
Barbara Estes
Patricia Faver - Secretary
Deborah Jackson
Jean Langston
Ralph Langston
Brenda Lester
John McCarthy
Matthew McGann
Debra Ramsey
Bree Schmidt
Gary Taylor
Robert Torres
II
THE ROLE OF THE GRAND JURY
The Grand Jury is primarily an investigative body created by the United
States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and the California Constitution.
Nineteen residents of Glenn County are selected after interviewing 30 to 40
people. Grand Juries are impaneled annually and are officers of the Court,
but work independently. Most of the work is done by committees, which
include Public Safety, Schools, Public Works, Health Services, City/ County
Government and Finance. Other committees may be appointed as needed.
The Grand Jury and committees meet several times a month. The Jury
meets with County and City officials, visits local government facilities, and
conducts research on matters of interest and concern. The proceedings of
the Grand Jury are kept confidential. Jurors may not discuss the business of
the Jury with other individuals.
The Grand Jury receives letters from citizens expressing concern over a
particular matter of local government. Anyone may file a complaint with the
Grand Jury. The Grand Jury chooses which complaints to investigate. The
Grand Jury cannot investigate disputes between private parties. All
complaints to the Grand Jury are confidential.
All Grand Jury findings and recommendations are issued in written reports.
Each report must be approved by at least 12 members of the Jury. At the end
of the term ( June 30th), the Jury issues its final report. Copies of the report
are distributed to public officials, libraries, news media, and any entity that
is the subject of a report. Within ninety days, following the issuance of the
report, officials responsible for matters addressed are required to respond in
writing.
III
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS & INSTRUCTIONS
The legal requirements as contained in the California Penal Code, Section 933.05 are
summarized as follows:
The responding entity or person must respond in one of two ways:
( 1) That you agree with the finding.
( 2) The you disagree wholly or partially with the finding. The response shall
specify the part of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons for the disagreement.
Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding entity or person
must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented with a summary of the
implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented
in the near future with a time frame for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis. If an entity or person
reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the
analysis or study and time frame not to exceed six months. In this event,
the analysis or study must be submitted to the director of the agency being
investigated.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted
or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a
County department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of
Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests. The Board of Supervisors’
response may be limited, while the response by the department head must address all
aspects of the finding or recommendations.
Two working days prior to the release of the Final Report, the Grand Jury will provide a
copy of the portion of the report to all affected agencies or persons. No officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose the contents of the
report prior to its public release.
Section 933( c) of the Penal Code provides two different response times.
( 1) Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond
within 90 days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of
the Superior Court.
( 2) Elective Officer of Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of
agencies who are required to respond must do so within 60 days to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an informational copy
provided to the Board of Supervisors.
IV
2004- 2005
GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
June 30th, 2005
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Agricultural Commissioner
I. PURPOSE:
To review the Glenn County Agricultural Commissioner’s programs,
goals, and objectives.
II. BACKROUND:
The Agricultural Commissioner’s Office consists of six areas.
Environmental Protection, Consumer Protection, Special Services,
Weights and Measures, Air Pollution Control, and Vegetation and
Environmental Management.
III. FINDINGS:
Staffing is adequate. The department has seventeen full time
positions, and vacancies are filled at a lower grade position. Six
employees will retire within three to five years. Sixty- three percent of
the departments budget is funded from outside sources. Total
reductions in the budget for the last three years is two- hundred- fifty-two
thousand five- hundred fourteen dollars. The agricultural revenue
for the county is three- hundred- eighteen million dollars annually. The
Department has a twenty- five acre plot of land to test for field pests
and insects which they sweep and check for any infestations. The
Department has budgeted eighty- eight thousand dollars for home
hazardous waste pickup. Less than five percent of the gas pumps
tested in the county fail tests. Rice burning is down to twenty- one
point four percent of all county rice fields.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Agricultural Department is well managed and performs a wide
variety of services for Glenn County.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
The structure of all fines or citations imposed by the Agricultural
Department be reviewed to include all costs of legal services.
1
Build an Agricultural Extension Center on county property located
near the existing county office. This would be a one stop building for
all agricultural related needs. The building could lease office space to
Farm Credit, USDA, Farm Advisors and other Agricultural related
agencies.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Agricultural Commissioner
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
2
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
City of Orland
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the City of Orland
and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints and their
ability to operate effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members interviewed the Orland City Manager on
October 5th, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
There is a major area of concern regarding the amount of office space
currently in use. The City Manager states the he requires more space
to function properly. At the time of this interview the budget for 2005
was not yet complete. The city gets approximately twenty- five
percent of the property taxes collected locally and thirty- three percent
from sales taxes and impact fees. Plans are being developed to find
new quarters for the Orland Police Department. The City Manager is
appointed by City Council and has been in office for two and one half
years. The department consists of the City Manager and forty- three
staff members. The number of staff members has not changed since
1990. In the next ten years projected expansions for single family
dwellings include some one- thousand two- hundred homes with eight-hundred
multi- family residences.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
With the current growth, the major problems facing City Hall are lack
of office space and the relocating of the Orland Police Department.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Explore the possibilities of relocating the Orland Police Department,
either permanently or temporarily, to the now, unoccupied, Sheriff’s
substation at 821 South Street in Orland. City Hall could then expand
to occupy the Police Department.
3
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Orland City Manager
Orland City Council
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
4
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
City of Willows
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the City of Willows
and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints and their
ability to operate effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members interviewed the Willows City Manager on
October 4th, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
One major area of concern, regarding the city’s ability to maintain
quality of life, is with State delays and cancellation of important
programs.
There have been no major changes in the last six months other than
the ongoing improvement with the old water supply system and
sewage treatment plant. If funds become available, improvements are
planned for the streets and sidewalks. The new budget was currently
at the printers as of this interview. The City receives approximately
twenty percent of their funds from property taxes. Other sources are
sales taxes and development fees.
The City Manager’s position is appointed by the City Council. The
department consists of the City Manager and thirty- six staff members.
The city presently has an infrastructure valued at approximately five
to six million dollars with private investors willing to invest in the
quality of life in Willows. In the past, a large portion of the county
has been annexed into the city. There are two housing tracts approved
for single family homes. Commercial property plans include Wal-
Mart’s plan to expand from eighty- six thousand to one- hundred eight-six
thousand square feet. There are plans for a new Holiday Inn
Express and for Superior Products ( Budweiser) to build a large new
facility on the east side. Starbuck’s Coffee has plans to locate in
Willows, as do a couple of fast food establishments. The City has
property zoned for an industrial park.
5
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The city has major concerns with the State budget problem. The
League of California Cities predicts major cuts for all cities across the
State. Current monies due are not being paid. This is making it very
difficult to make plans and accept proposals for future needs when the
State simply delays or cancels programs. This problem may change in
three years. However, the City’s concern seem justified at the present
time.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
None
6
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Public Libraries
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate the budget cuts by Glenn County as they relate to
Glenn County Public Libraries.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County funding of the public libraries has been cut, roughly,
fifty per cent over the past two years. The cities have been able to
supplement cuts in order for the libraries to survive. While the cities
increased library funding has been necessary and appreciated, it is not
expected to continue in such significant percentages. Disproportionate
General Fund budget cuts for the county library system will make it
difficult for the libraries to function at existing levels if the cities
aren’t able to offset the cuts with increased funding each year.
III. FINDINGS:
The public libraries of Glenn County are to be funded by the county,
and run by the cities. As recently as two years ago, the libraries
considered themselves to be in decent financial shape. With county
funding maintaining consistent levels, more or less, year after year.
With the cities supplementing library funding, the libraries were able
to function in such a capacity that there was no need to cut their most
important resource, staff. Some libraries have volunteer groups
called “ Friends of the Library. They provide valuable hours of service
to the libraries. The “ California Tele- Connect Fund” has helped keep
telecommunication more affordable to the libraries. The Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation helped the Orland Library establish
stronger computer services. Budget cuts have been implemented, but
library visitation has not waned. The Orland Library is visited by over
two- hundred- fifty people per day, while the Willows Library averages
around one- hundred- twenty. The Bayliss Branch is open on Tuesdays
and the Elk Creek Branch is open on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
7
The Bayliss and Elk Creek branches have been nearly closed in the
past, but community fundraising and support has kept them open. The
Willows Library is open twenty- nine hours a week, Tuesday through
Saturday. The Orland library is open thirty- seven hours per week,
Monday through Friday. As a rule, materials and maintenance are the
first things cut when libraries are in financial binds, with staff being
the last to be cut. The Orland Library employs five full- time and three
part- time staff. Although two full- time employees are retiring and
lack of funding might not allow for the replacement of the full- time
staff. The Willows Library employees two full- time staff and five
part- time staff. Budget cuts have hurt the face- to- face service that the
library has traditionally been able to provide. This year, the libraries
were given the budget without the ability to discuss it beforehand, as
they had in the past.
Percentage- wise, the county’s funding of the libraries is as low as its
ever been and it has probably gone as low as it can go.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Library services and their role in the education of the community are
unquestionably an important part of the county. The fact that the need
for library services to be part of the General Fund clearly
acknowledges the importance of the existence of a library system.
However, for a county to choose to maintain a library system without
adequate funding, disproportionate cuts in library services will not
allow for continued excellence in the quality of service that Glenn
County libraries provide. With population growth in the county the
necessity of public libraries will only increase. If, as expected, the
cities are unable to give more funding to the libraries each year the
libraries will be unable to stay open for as many hours as they are now
and will not be able to continue to adequately staff for the face- to- face
service that good libraries provide.
Willows will not be able to afford to supplement the Elk Creek &
Bayliss cuts in the future.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
The librarians of the county should be allowed to offer input to the
county regarding their fate before being given a no- questions- asked
budget to accept.
8
While it goes without saying that services such as public protection,
safety and public assistance are necessary for the community, it
should not be discounted that library services and education are
entities that influence the General Fund across the board. A literate,
educated society will reduce crime and the need for increased
incarceration facilities. Education was the only budgeted area to be
cut more than thirty per cent by the county ( the only other are to
experience decreased funding - Public Protection/ Safety - endured a
one point five percent decrease) from the previous year. Library
services decreased thirty- seven percent. Considering the relatively
small operating budget of the libraries in the past, County funding of
education and the libraries should be expanded. Therefore, we
recommend the following:
1) Basically, county residents are 50% of the Library patrons. The
County should, therefore, pay half the cost of providing library
services.
2) The library should have a voice in the budget process.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Director of Finance
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
9
10
11
12
13
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Local Agency Formation Commission
I. PURPOSE:
To determine whether or not the Local Agency Formation
Commission ( LAFCO) is an independent agency. Also, to determine
if there were city and county planning conflicts due to the fact that
LAFCO is currently staffed by county employees.
II. BACKROUND:
The Grand Jury interviewed various heads of City and County
Government in order to find out if LAFCO is functioning
independently, without City and County conflict, in accordance with
the law.
III. FINDINGS:
The Orland City Manager says that LAFCO should be independent.
Each city contributes one third of the LAFCO budget. Orland’s City
Manager mentions that MSRs and Sphere of influence costs are paid
now by the city. He also mentions that the County Planning and
Public Works Director is the director of LAFCO and this is unusual
for counties.
The Willows City Manager doesn’t think that it makes any sense to
staff LAFCO any differently than it is now. The Willows City
Manager believes that it would cost too much money to independently
staff LAFCO.
The County Planning and Public Works Director believes that LAFCO
is ensuring that districts are efficient and well- planned. LAFCO
hasn’t met in almost a year but will be meeting soon to discuss the
inclusion of Thunder Hill Raceway to the water district. Part of the
County Planning and Public Works Director’s job description is that
he heads LAFCO.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
LAFCO is not an agency separate from Glenn County staffing, but
economical factors limit hiring an outside agency at this time.
14
Considering how infrequently LAFCO meets, it is not fiscally
responsible to fund an outside agency.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendations are necessary, however the Grand Jury would
like written confirmation from County Counsel that the LAFCO in
Glenn County is legally compliant with statues defining the
independence of the agency.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Counsel
15
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Planning and Development Conflicts
Between County and Cities
I. PURPOSE
To determine the nature of communication and conflicts between
Glenn County and the cities within Glenn County, with regard to
planning and development issues.
II. BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury interviewed various City and County staff members
and inquired specifically about the manner of communication between
all groups and their overall satisfaction with the planning and
development process.
III. FINDINGS
The current County Planning and Public Works Director has
encountered some lack of communication with the cities, specifically
with Orland, claiming they have not receiving some County
correspondence. Monthly lunch meetings between City and County
leaders have proven beneficial in communication efforts. The County
Planning and Public Works Director also recommends the
development of a pre- development round- table with prospective
developers in efforts to further communications in planning.
The City of Willows is satisfied with the level of communication
between themselves and the County. The Willows City Manager
meets with the County Planning and Public Works Director on a
regular basis. He makes note of the fact that his relationship with the
County has been easy because their offices are down the street from
each other. Also, Willows does not have as much development and
pressure as Orland.
In Orland, the City Manager acknowledges problems in
communication with the County but that things are improving.
Orland’s hiring of a full- time planner has made communication easier
for the City. The Orland City Manager mentioned that he’s starting to
receive notice of development applications.
16
However, recent proposed County development brought strenuous
objections from the City of Orland. The City felt the development
would inhibit the future “ orderly and rational expansion” of urban and
residential uses and services to the areas. In prior years, the County of
Glenn and the City of Orland worked together and jointly adopted a
general plan that directed growth in Orland and the surrounding
planning area. In 2003 the City of Orland amended its general plan
without joint cooperation with the County. As a result, the County
plan and the current City plan were not jointly adopted. In addition,
the Orland plan is now outdated, after only two years.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Recent efforts to maintain monthly meetings between all planning
staff is a step in the right direction. All planning staff see these
meetings as appropriate methods of communication. A joint planning
effort between Orland and Glenn County, to revise and update their
general plans, would provide more consistent development policies in
Orland and the surrounding planning area.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Glenn County Grand Jury recommends a joint planning effort to
structure a cooperative planning direction. The Grand Jury
specifically recommends a written, Cooperative General Plan between
the incorporated Cities and the County. Both groups should also
ensure that legal requirements are met for all methods of
correspondence and notification in matters of planning.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED
Glenn County Planning and Public Works Director
City of Orland
City of Willows
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
County / City Property Tax Splits
I. PURPOSE
To investigate whether or not Assembly Bill 8 property tax splits are
equitable.
II. BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill Eight ( AB 8) was implemented in 1979 and established
a method of allocating property tax revenues to local government
agencies. The State of California completed an audit in 2003 which
determined that Glenn County was in accordance with AB 8
allocation. The Grand Jury asked various City and County staff
members whether or not they found the AB 8 splits to be equitable.
III. FINDINGS
By interviewing the County Planning and Public Works Director, the
Willows City Manager and the Orland City Manager it was clear that
each entity believes it is being shorted by the AB 8 tax split. The
County Planning Director mentioned that outside firms are being
considered to determine whether or not the current fifty/ fifty
City/ County splits are equitable. But, finding the right firm has not
been easy. He mentioned that the City of Orland had hired the former
City Manager of Roseville to assess the splits. According to The
County Planning Director, part of the problem is that the cities and
county are competitors for every piece of the property tax dollar and
they each believe they are entitled to seventy cents on the dollar, but
are settling on fifty/ fifty splits.
The Willows City Manager has accepted the fifty/ fifty split between
the cities and the county. However, the County Planning Director
feels that it should rightfully be swayed more towards his side in a
seventy/ thirty split. The Orland City Manager believes that the cities
withstand a greater burden and are entitled to a seventy/ thirty split.
The Orland City Manager asked for a fifty/ fifty split as a compromise,
but is of the opinion that the city can live with the inequitable split for
the time being.
24
It was The Orland City Manger’s hope that the hiring of an outside
consultant would help assist in the development of a master agreement
between the cities and county. He still believes that the best way to do
a proper split would be to conduct a study, but that the study would
cost a minimum of sixty thousand dollars. All of this being said, the
Orland City Manager maintains that the lack of a formal split
agreement is not delaying any development.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
In prior years, the City / County AB- 8 Tax split was 54/ 46. Recently
the City of Orland has given up some funds and agreed to a 50/ 50
split, although the Orland City Manager feels the City is entitled to
70%. The County also feels it is entitled to 70%. It is clear that each
side is dissatisfied with its share of the split at the current fifty/ fifty
ratio.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury strongly recommends a joint group of existing City
and County government leaders be devised to negotiate a formal and
universally accepted split of AB 8 property tax dollars.
V. RESPONSE REQUIRED
County of Glenn
City of Willows
City of Orland
25
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Development Impact Fees
I. PURPOSE
To investigate the possibility of the County charging developers for
impact fees in much the same way the cities are now charging.
II. BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury interviewed three representatives of city and county
government. The County Planning and Public Works Director, was
interviewed on the county side, and city managers of Orland and
Willows were interviewed to represent the views of the incorporated
cities. Currently only the cities of Glenn County are charging impact
fees for development within cities limits.
III. FINDINGS
The county representative acknowledges that they don’t charge
developer impact fees at this time but he would like to see a change in
this policy. The county believes that a study is needed to determine
how to charge for developer fees. The County Planning and Public
Works Director recommends that Glenn County could use a recent
study done by Butte County to support the viability of charging county
impact fees. In the words of The County Planning and Public Works
Director, the absence of developer fees will lead to the “ future
deterioration of services.”
The Orland City Manager pointed out that county development
brought no impact fees to fund the city services that these county
residents would ultimately be using. The Orland City Manager
believes that impacts in county planning are even more important to
the cities in many instances. While the city has developer impact fees,
they are one- time- only fees and can’t perpetuate some of the services
and, coupled with the fact that county land- use designation isn’t
always in the best interest of city growth plans, the cities are often
burdened with extra costs to provide services.
26
The Willows City Manager acknowledged that the city of Willows
charges different impact fees for different areas of development.
Developers are required to submit evaluations of development before
approval and, if development commences, the work is bonded in the
event that the city might end up picking up the costs. Some developers
decide to back out when they don’t like the looks of the fees. Copies
of development proposals are given to the members of an informal
group of city and county leaders. This group consists of The Human
Resources Agency Director, The County Planning and Public Works
Director, The Orland City Manager, and The Willows City Manager.
The Willows City Manager believes that there are no inconsistencies
between Willows and Glenn County with regard to planning, but does
acknowledge that Willows’ small footprint ( two and one half square
miles), tends to make growth in the Willows area less controversial
than cities like Orland.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
City and County staff agree that the County should charge developer
impact fees.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Glenn County should use a study and implement county development
impact fees in Glenn County.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED
Board of Supervisors
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey
I. PURPOSE:
To acknowledge the Glenn County Grand Jury’s receipt of the Glenn
County Assessment Practices Survey Report.
II. BACKROUND:
Section 15646 of the Government Code requires the State Board of
Equalization to survey each county to determine the adequacy of the
practices and procedures used by the County Assessor in valuation of
properties and related duties. Section 15646 requires the report be
sent to specific state and local government officials and that it also be
made available to other interested parties for their information upon
request. The Glenn County Grand Jury was also sent a copy of the
report.
III. FINDINGS:
The Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey Report was received
by the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey Report was reviewed
by the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury and found the report
acceptable.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
None
34
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Grand Jury Copy Machine Lease
Inland Leasing, Inc.
I. PURPOSE
To determine the feasibility of continuing the copy machine leased for
the Grand Jury from Inland Leasing, Inc.
II. BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury has a copy machine under lease through Inland
Leasing, Inc. of Chico, California. The Grand Jury also has a
maintenance agreement for the leased copy machine through Inland
Business Systems of Chico, Ca.
III. FINDINGS
The Grand Jury determined that the copy machine lease will expire in
June of 2005.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The Grand Jury concurs with the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report
with the fact that the number of copies required to be printed by the
Grand Jury does not justify the annual cost of the copy machine lease
and has elected not to continue the lease upon expiration. The Grand
Jury will be better off purchasing a smaller, less sophisticated machine
or have copies made at a local printers.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury purchase
a smaller, less sophisticated machine or have copies made at a local
printers.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED
None
35
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Environmental Health
I. PURPOSE:
To meet with Glenn County’s Director of Environmental Health
review administrative operations and agency service related to
environmental issues such as the West Nile Virus.
II. BACKROUND:
Several members of the Glenn County Grand Jury met with Glenn
County’s Director of Environmental Health who welcomed questions
and offered facts related to administrative operations and agency
services and explained the West Nile Virus issue was not a serious
problem, in his opinion.
III. FINDINGS:
Currently there are three full time staff members as well as the
director. The director’s salary is paid by both county and state
funds. The department monitors retail food sales such as restaurants
and grocery stores. They also monitor rabies control within Glenn
County and issue permits.
The director was kind, receptive and very informative. When
presented with questions concerning the West Nile Virus issue he
related several facts which dispelled any rumors concerning the
seriousness of the issue. Among them was the fact that chances of any
Glenn County resident contracting this virus were extremely rare and
that concerns should be directed on issues surround the public waste
facility and state laws regarding the depth of mandated wells to
monitor toxic gases. He stated the landfill site is currently safe but
state laws require deep wells which are not practical in measuring
amounts of ground surface gases. Another concern is the county must
purchase the lands so that permits may be issued and the purchase of
this property is meeting resistance from the landowner. He also stated
the cause of the pollution in the ocean shoreline of Southern
California is not related to septic systems in the North State and new
laws, currently being
36
presented at the State level, may pose serious problems because of the strict
monitoring of these septic systems and the lack of staffing to meet new
demands placed on increased inspection requirements is another important
area of concern.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
At the time of the interview, the Glenn County Grand Jury agreed
with the Director of Environmental Health’s presentation of facts and
his conclusion that West Nile Virus was not an area of great concern.
However, a recent death of a young man in the Capay area, from
complications related the West Nile Virus, offers new concerns
regarding the facts first presented during the interview. There are also
concerns related to the land fill and new State laws.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Board of Supervisors finalize the process to acquire land
needed for the Glenn County Land Fill as soon as possible.
2. The establishment of a county wide mosquito abatement
district.
3. The Director of Environmental Health continues to monitor and
respond to new State law that may impact North State
development.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Director of Environmental Health
Board of Supervisors
Planning and Public Works
37
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn Medical Center ( GMC)
I. PURPOSE:
To review Glenn Medical Center’s service to the community. To
observe the current condition of the building and its economic
viability to remain open in the future.
II. BACKROUND:
The Glenn County Grand Jury met with the hospital administrator and
attended a session discussing several programs/ plans currently under
development, on October 13, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
1. Jared Garrison, M. D. joined the Medical Staff in July as a fulltime
physician in the hospital’s Family Care Clinic. In addition to
providing patient services in the clinic, Dr. Garrison, along with other
medical staff members, is assisting GMC in the development of a
Worker’s Compensation program for area employers.
2. Dr. Larry Highman, Board Certified General Surgeon has joined
the hospital to provide endoscopy and outpatient surgical services. He
is a member of the Colusa Regional Medical Center Board of Trustees
and Foundation and a respected physician in the community.
3. Glenn Medical Center is developing a broader base of physician
clinics. In the 2004- 2005 fiscal year, the hospital will offer a Hepatitis
C clinic, a new Worker’s Compensation clinic, and an OB/ GYN
clinic.
4. Glenn Medical Center is in the midst of a fund drive to bring
mammography back to Glenn County. The hospital anticipates having
this service on board by January 1st, 2005. It is anticipated that 50 to
60 tests will be done on a monthly basis given a sampling of area
physicians and allied health providers.
38
5. The hospital, in cooperation with Colusa Regional Medical Center,
will offer mobile MRI services on a twice monthly basis. The
expected start date is December 1, 2004.
6. Glenn Medical Center is exploring acquisition of a Dexa Scanner
for bone densitometry testing. This may be the hospital’s next major
fund raising project following the mammography services.
7. The hospital is currently licensed for fifteen acute beds, with
another thirty- four being held in reserve. Of these fifteen beds, GMC
is awaiting approval from CMS and their fiscal intermediary to utilize
a portion of these beds for what are termed, “ swing patients”. These
are patients who do not qualify for acute care but who are awaiting
nursing home placement or other lower levels of care.
8. Glenn Medical Center continues to operated through a lease
arrangement with Enloe Medical Center and William Casey, Inc.
Enloe has engaged Mr. Casey to provide management services to
Glenn Medical Center and has appointed Woody Laughnan Jr. as day-to-
day administrator through December 31st, 2004.
9. The existing hospital building meets current standard. However,
this building will not meet standards in the year 2013 without adding
additional buildings or portables outside the main building for certain
services. This building will not meet the year 2030 standards.
Several hospitals in other rural areas will not meet the year 2030
standards as well.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Grand Jurors have concluded Glenn Medical Center’s current outward
appearance needs improvement in the area of landscaping. Along
with much needed improvements to the landscaping GMC needs to
develop a positive public image through improved public relations
locally as well as in surrounding communities to draw patients back to
this location for their medical needs.
39
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Solicit local non- profit organizations such as the one used at the Glenn
County Fairgrounds or other organizations such as the Boy Scouts of
America. Other possibilities include local church organizations, and
public volunteers such as senior citizens groups for assistance in the
area of planting, beautification, and maintenance.
Develop a public relations media campaign for Glenn County and
surrounding areas.
Develop funding sources for expansion and improvements to help
meet the 2013 standards. Work with other rural hospitals and state
legislators to amend 2030 standards to keep rural hospitals open and
viable.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn Medical Center Administration
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
40
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Jail
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current conditions at the Glenn County Jail and assess
any needs or concerns regarding this facility.
II. BACKROUND:
Members of the Glenn County Grand Jury toured the Glenn County
Jail on November 10th, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
The population of the jail at the time of this tour was approximately
one- hundred- two inmates. The facility can hold a maximum of one-hundred
forty- four inmates. With one- hundred- two inmates and three
staff members on duty, the ratio is about thirty- four inmates per staff
member. It takes approximately forty- five to sixty minutes for most
bookings. The facility has only one padded cell which, at times, is a
problem. The jail currently contracts for space with Tulare and
Colusa Counties. The general appearance of the facility ranged from
poor to good. There were many areas, including doors, floors and
walls that are in need of painting throughout the facility. The kitchen
floor needs to be swept and cleaned. The floor was wet and very
slippery. The grand Jury visited the kitchen during the evening meal
preparation. The cove base along the walls and floor is in need of
repair or replacement. At the time of this tour the kitchen floor posed
a safety hazard for employees and inmates. The food seemed well-prepared.
There was a distinct odor throughout the facility and the
lighting system was not working in the visitation area. The staff
appeared more efficient and organized than had been reported in
previous Grand Jury findings. The area had an effective layout with
good scheduling. Additional cameras are to be added for the
observation tower.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Proper maintenance of this facility seems to be lacking.
41
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The kitchen floors need repair/ repainting. The kitchen base coving
needs to be repaired/ replaced. The floor needs to be maintained at a
higher lever of sanitary standards. Lighting needs to be
repaired/ replaced in the visitation area. It is further recommended
there be an addition of more cameras.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Sheriff
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
42
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Sheriff’s Department
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the department and
discuss possible problems with new budgetary constraints and its
ability to serve the public effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
The Grand Jury interviewed the Glenn County Sheriff’s Department
on November 3rd, 2004 and found several issues which may have
significant impacts on its ability to serve the public effectively.
III. FINDINGS:
The Glenn County Sheriff’s Department received funds from the State
of California in the amount of five- hundred thousand dollars. It was
used to subsidize the department this year. And, it helped save many
jobs. Concerns are that, without this funding in future years, jobs will
be lost and service to the community will suffer. The Sheriff’s
Department annual cost to the general fund is approximately six
million dollars.
Funds generated from the 9- 1- 1 rollover calls are approximately one-hundred
twenty thousand dollars per year from the Orland and
Willows Police Departments. And, funds generated from booking
fees for the California Highway Patrol are approximately five
thousand dollars.
Due to cutbacks in funding and the lack of officers on patrol, the
department is currently prioritizing calls with those posing the greatest
danger to person or public safety being given top priority. Small
crimes such as thefts or robberies, not involving confrontation
between those being robbed and those committing the crime, are
usually handled the next day.
The sheriff is planning a visit the Planning Commission meeting in
Mid- November to petition for a zoning review and study for impact
fees on new development which will help cover costs resulting in the
need for increased services.
43
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Budgetary constraints and the necessary cut backs which accompany
such constraints present serious problems to the community. The
Sheriff’s Department will, undoubtedly, not have the ability to serve
the community as effectively as they have in past years. This situation
will only worsen as the community grows.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the Grand Jury to the Board of
Supervisors to implement a one- time impact fee of approximately
one- thousand five- hundred dollars to two- thousand dollars from
developers for all new residences in Glenn County to help cover the
costs of increased services for Law Enforcement.
The Grand Jury also recommends a citizens patrol program be formed
to help with crime watch / VIP style, or perhaps, SWORN DEPUTY
style.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
Glenn County Sherrif’s Department
44
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Intruder Alert Procedures
I. PURPOSE:
To determine the procedures regarding an Intruder Alert Lockdown
between the Orland Police Department and the Orland Unified School
District
II. BACKROUND:
The Grand Jury interviewed the Orland Chief of Police and the
Superintendent of Schools to review procedures for communicating,
for school lockdown, in the event of an intruder alert.
III. FINDINGS:
In 2004 there was a bank robbery at the Orland Branch of the Bank of
America located approximately four blocks from Orland High School
and approximately five blocks from Mill Street Elementary School.
Following the robbery there were various law enforcement agencies at
the bank, including the Orland Police Department. There was no
communication to the school district, from the various law
enforcement agencies, for a possible intrusion alert from the bank
robbery suspect.
The Superintendent of Schools drove by the Bank of America and
continued on to his office located on sixth street. The Superintendent
states that he called the Orland Police Department and then called the
schools and ordered a lock down. The Grand Jury asked the Police
Chief who was responsible to call the school district for a possible
intruder alert lockdown. The Grand Jury was advised that the Police
Chief makes the call, when necessary.
The Grand Jury did not see a written procedure from the Police Chief
for an intruder lock down. After the incident, the Superintendent held
a debriefing meeting with the school principals to discuss the
lockdown procedures and possible ways to improve the process.
However, according to the Superintendent, he did not have a post
incident meeting or debriefing with the Orland Police Department to
discuss ways to improve communications.
45
In December of 2004 several principals attended a training session on
emergency procedures and the School District is in the process of
updating its procedure manual on this topic.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
During this situation there was no direct communication between the
Orland Chief of Police and the Orland Superintendent of Schools.
The Chief did not feel a school lockdown was warranted and the
Superintendent acted without talking to the Chief or another Incident
Commander. The incident may have caused some inconveniences at
the school, but fortunately, no one was injured or endangered. The
Grand Jury is very concerned about improving the communication
process between the Orland Police Department and the schools
regarding lockdowns. There certainly should have been a meeting or
a debriefing between the Orland Police Department and the schools
after the incident.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Orland Police Department and the Orland School District meet
and adopt written procedures for intruder alert lockdowns, including
completing the update of the School Procedure Manual.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Orland Police Department
Orland Unified School District
46
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions at the Jane Hahn Juvenile
Hall and assess any needs or concerns regarding this facility.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members toured Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall on October 13th,
2004 and a follow- up interview was performed on October 19th, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
According to State standards the Juvenile Hall is short one line staff
member. The Director has done some fine work in writing grants and
securing additional funding to improve this facility. She is obviously
dedicated to the children under her charge. The philosophy and
attitude of management and staff is great.
An absence of fire extinguishers in the kitchen area was noted. The
kitchen is being equipped with a new stove, walk- in freezer and walk-in
refrigerator. Once this equipment has been installed, evening meals
will be prepared on site. There is an education program structured like
public schools and it is well equipped with adequate supplies. Staff
members reported that it was difficult to make a good presentation to
all Grand Jury members as the group was too large to manage in
secured area. Approximately eight to ten percent of the residents are
repeat offenders. This facility currently houses twenty- two occupants.
Under extreme conditions this capacity has the ability to house
approximately thirty youth. Paint is peeling off on some of the floors.
Recreational equipment, specifically, basketball hoops, are not secured
in the yard area which may be of some concern.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
There are concerns relating to the security of the youth from drive- by
harassment and/ or potential drive- by shootings from the street area
directly behind the exercise yard. The shortage of line staff adds to
the problem of supervisors and their ability to perform their duties.
47
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Appearance and presentation are important and the peeling of the paint
is unsightly. It is recommended that the floor be repainted and that
adequate fire fighting equipment be installed in the kitchen to meet
guidelines set by the State and County. It is also recommended that the
2005- 2006 Grand Jury visit to this facility be confined to the
committee members involved ( Public Safety Committee), plus the
Grand Jury Foreperson. The Grand Jury recommends the staffing for
the Juvenile Hall be brought up to State standards.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Director of Probation
48
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Orland Police Department
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the department and
discuss possible problems with new budgetary constraints and their
ability to serve the public effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members interviewed with the Orland Police Chief on
November 19th, 2004 and found one major issue concerning the
present quarters for the department.
III. FINDINGS:
There are many new housing tracts currently under development
within the community. The addition of approximately one- thousand
new homes will expand the Orland Police Departments realm of
responsibilities significantly.
The Orland Police Department has been granted thirty- thousand
dollars for a feasibility study for additional space. The Orland Police
Department and Willows Police Department both agree that shared
communication is needed. The 9- 1- 1 rollover costs are approximately
forty- five thousand dollars annually to the jail, sixty thousand dollars
to the Sheriff’s Department and three thousand one- hundred dollars
monthly for booking fees. The department has three new tazer guns at
a cost of one thousand nine- hundred seventy- seven dollars each; tazer
guns are shared by nine officers. Volunteers in the Police Service
program provide services to the residence of the community while the
home owners are out of town. They also search for missing children
and direct traffic at major accidents when necessary. This is an
excellent program and permits sworn officers time to fulfill other,
more serious, community needs. At the time of this interview, the
Chief’s position was held on an “ acting” basis. It has since become a
permanent position. The department has four marked vehicles and
one unmarked vehicle.
49
The department has a good working relationship with the Willows
Police Department, the California Highway Patrol and drug agencies.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Currently, booking a person into the Glenn County Jail requires
officers spend one hour traveling time for simple charges such as
shoplifting. It takes three to four hours for a D. U. I. ( Driving Under
Influence). Lack of officers on patrol, during these booking/ traveling
times, poses significant safety issues to the public. The present
quarters are insufficient and have no “ holding area”. This hinders the
departments ability to provide necessary services.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Plans for future developmental growth must include looking into the
feasibility of relocation to larger quarters. Suggestions might include
looking into the now, unoccupied, Sheriff’s Substation located at 821
South Street as a stop- gap or permanent location.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Orland Police Chief
Orland City Council
Board of Supervisors
Glenn County Sheriff
50
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Willows Police Department
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the Willows Police
Department and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints
and their ability to serve the public effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members interviewed the Willows Police Department on
November 12th, 2004, and found a major issue concerning future
growth and development within the community and their ability to
provide necessary services with those currently working within the
department.
III. FINDINGS:
The department is currently in the same building with the Willows
Public Library and Willows City Hall functions. The 9- 1- 1 rollover
number and department number operate five days per week during
normal business hours. After hours, the Sheriff’s Department handles
911 calls.
There is one- thousand three- hundred square feet of space for eleven
sworn officers. There are three members of the office staff. The
department and the city are currently paying fees to the county. These
fees are increasing administration costs.
The department has a quote of three- hundred- nine thousand dollars
dated 2002 to remodel the present quarters giving them a total of two-thousand
nine- hundred square feet. This is provided the Public
Library relocates altogether. Another option is to use the property
directly behind their present quarters. However, this might pose a
traffic hazard with growth and personnel expansion. Currently, the
department will need three more sworn officers within the next three
to five years because of growth within the community.
There are four patrol vehicles plus the Chief’s vehicle and one
unmarked vehicle. No vehicles are taken home with the exception of
the Chief’s.
51
There are no volunteer programs. However, there is a community
service program. This community service program, consisting of two
non- sworn members who have had police schooling and training, are
on call and are paid for their services.
The Chief has been with the department six years. The department
mails out a citizen’s survey every Friday by randomly choosing ten
calls received each week. These citizens are asked 7 questions
relating to department and officer performance. The responses are
rated on a scale from one to five, with one being poor and five being
excellent.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Police Department needs more room for current employees. In
addition, they would need six to seven more employees if they were to
handle their own calls twenty- four hours, seven days per week. This
would further increase the need for expanded quarters.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The department must plan to move or build larger quarters, as the
department increases in personnel, to cover necessary services to a
growing community.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
City Council
Willows Chief of Police
52
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Public Facilities Projects
I. PURPOSE:
To assess the progress of improvements to certain public facilities.
II. BACKGROUND:
Several County facilities need major repairs and upgrades. The
County has deferred maintenance on these facilities and has been
unable to upgrade them due to budget shortfalls and lack of alternative
funding sources. Prop. 40 allocated 1.2 million dollars to the County.
The County dispersed $ 220,000 to each City and will use the
remainder on County facilities.
III. FINDINGS:
On June 1, 2004, with the recommendation of the County Facilities
Planning Committee, a list of Prop. 40 Grant funded projects, with
cost estimates, were proposed and approved by the Board of
Supervisors. These projects included:
1. Bayliss Library - Renovation and restoration for an estimated
$ 195,000.
2. Orland Memorial Hall and Park - Improve the method of
ingress/ egress to meet ADA requirements, install exit and
emergency lighting, and enlarge / remodel restrooms with new
ADA compliant facilities and fixtures for an estimated $ 85,000.
3. Willows Memorial Hall and Park - Installation of an ADA
compliant drinking fountain for an estimated $ 5,000.
4. Hamilton City Park - Replace and/ or install ADA compliant
sidewalks, construct a 50 foot diameter gazebo, run all
underground electric, install new lighting, upgrade the area and
replace the basketball court to prevent loose balls from escaping
into the street for an estimated $ 90,000.
5. Ord Bend Park and Boat Ramp - upgrade the parking lot and
walkway surfaces around the rest room for ADA compliance,
add additional lighting, upgrade the irrigation system to
improve
53
efficiency and improve the boat ramp area for an estimated cost
of $ 88,000.
The Bayliss Library project is the first priority and construction is
scheduled to start in the summer of 2005. After the Bayliss Library
project, the others will be developed and constructed.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Planning Department is doing an excellent job moving forward
on the Bayliss project and developing the other projects. These
repairs and upgrades are important. Deferred maintenance leads to
higher costs in the future.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Glenn Planning continues the development of these County facilities
projects and tries to access additional funds, with the Prop. 40 Grant
Funds. Glenn Planning provides the 2005- 2006 Glenn County Grand
Jury with an update and status report on these projects.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency
54
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Butte City Boat Ramp
I. PURPOSE:
To continue monitoring and assess the progress at the boat ramp.
II. BACKROUND:
The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommended installation of security
lighting and a camera at the boat ramp. The project was put on hold
because silting problems are occurring in the area and the County has
been delayed in getting the necessary permits to dredge.
III. FINDINGS:
If the County cannot get a permit and dredge the site the ramp will not
be used. Installation of the lights and camera, at this time, would be a
waste of money.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The County should pursue the dredging permit or find an alternative
site for access in that area.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
When the present site is dredged or an alternative site is developed the
County should proceed with the installation of lighting and a security
camera.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency
55
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Fleet Management
I. PURPOSE:
To review the Glenn County Fleet Management Policy.
II. BACKROUND:
Fleet Management is a Division of the Public Works Department. The
county makes transportation available to the various county
departments through the operation of a Fleet Management Division.
They purchase, maintain and operate all vehicles to reduce the cost of
transportation to the county. Costs of the Fleet Management Division
are received from the user departments.
III. FINDINGS:
Fleet Management is responsible for all fleet vehicle purchases and
cannot increase the size of the fleet without approval of the Board of
Supervisors. Vehicles are purchased either from the California State
List of bids, or from vendors, whichever is lower priced. Vehicles are
only replaced when they meet the replacement criteria. Vehicle
outfitting is done in house with the exception of radio installations
which is contracted out to vendors. Departments can purchase cell
phones for their supervisors, which are the Nextel model with Walki-
Talkie features thus reducing call time expenses. Vehicles are
disposed of at vehicle auctions after being declared surplus by the
Board of Supervisors with the funds going into the Fleet Management
Fund. Fuel is purchased on an annual bid and is dispensed using a
card lock system. A new vehicle car wash rack is under construction.
The water is recycled to meet the new National Pollution Discharge
requirement. County tools and equipment are not loaned out to
individuals. The County is mandated to convert diesel vehicles to
cleaner burning, with less emissions.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Fleet Management Division adheres to the policies set forth in the
Glenn County Administrative Manual Title Fourteen.
56
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Diesel vehicles should be retrofitted to comply with all State and
Federal Clean Air Standards.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Planning and Public Works Agencies
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Airports
I. PURPOSE:
To review the current operations of the Glenn County Airports.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Airports have minimal security. Funds have been
allocated for partial fencing of the Orland Airport. Grants were also
applied for funding at the Willows Airport for security.
III. FINDINGS:
Federal Aviation Administration has allocated thirty thousand dollars
for fencing and the State will provide a matching five percent of that
amount for the Orland Airport. The grants for fencing at the Orland
Airport will not cover the cost of labor and materials to fence the
entire airport. Installation of the perimeter fencing will be done by
county crews as work load permits. Fence construction will start on
the East Side, along the airport side of the industrial park after the
environmental clearances are completed. The installation will
continue until the funds are exhausted. At the Orland Airport the
county building is currently vacant. The Public Works Department
perceives that security is a low risk concern due to the many available
Agricultural air strips in the county. Fuel is provided at both airports
using a card lock system. One public works maintenance worker is
assigned to split his duties between both airports. FAA wants an
updated master plan for the Willows Airport before it will allocate any
funding. The existing master plan is twenty years old.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The consolidation of both airports into one new airport could be an
advantage to Glenn County. The existing building could be rented out
for non airport uses at market values. The City of Willows could then
expand to the West Side of Interstate 5.
65
V. RECOMMENDATION:
A master plan for the airports should be drafted and a feasibility study
should be done to determine if a new airport complex with a ten
thousand foot airstrip should be considered. The location could be
midway between Orland and Willows adjacent to the I- 5 Highway.
The larger airport could accommodate larger aircraft and convenient
access to the I- 5 Highway. An industrial site could be incorporated in
the plan. An updated master plan for the Willows Airport must be
done. Fence construction should continue at the Orland Airport as
planned.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Planning and Public Works Agencies
Board of Supervisors
66
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
North Willows Storm Drainage
I. PURPOSE:
Investigate the Glenn County storm drainage system North of the City
of Willows.
II. BACKROUND:
Flooding has occurred North of the City of Willows in the Glenn
County service area.
III. FINDINGS:
The Public Works opinion is that the drainage system is adequate, and
the pumps can handle the additional water runoff.
If a developer proposes building residential housing North of Green
Street, it should be noted that the property is now in the county. A
solution has been suggested to construct a swale ( holding pond)
adjacent to the exiting drainage canal. An additional swale could be
constructed on other property in the event more temporary storage is
needed. This area is in the North Willows Storm Drain Maintenance
District. Some flooding has occurred because trash has blocked the
inlets to the system.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The North Willows Storm Drain Maintenance District has knowledge
of the flooding problems and are evaluating proposed additional needs
for necessary drainage requirements for the future.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
1. If development is proposed for the property in this flood prone area
the contractor should bear all costs to upgrade the drainage system
and all impact fees for water, sewer, streets and curbs with gutters.
2. Initiate a free dump day at the land fill or free pickup of trash,
possibly twice a year. This may eliminate some of the illegal dumping
which is done in remote areas, along the roads and drainage ditches.
67
Hazardous waste and large appliances could also be collected. This
may also reduce some of the code violations at private residential
properties.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
City of Willows
Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency
Board of Supervisors
68
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Orland Public Works and Infrastructure
I. PURPOSE:
To interview the City of Orland’s City Manager and the Director of
Public Works to review the city’s infrastructure of the Public Works
Department, water, sewer, streets and storm drains.
II. BACKROUND:
Can the City of Orland’s infrastructure accommodate future growth?
III. FINDINGS:
The Public Works Department has nine full- time and two part time
employees and a new director has been promoted from within the
department. The part- time employees are very reliable and do a good
job for the city. The department is funded from fees collected from
water and sewer with some collected from gas taxes and the General
Fund. Engineering is contracted with Anderson & Rolls of Chico.
Services are billed on an hourly basis as needed. New developers pay
for installation of services in new subdivisions.
According to the City Manager, the sewer system is currently
operating at fifty percent capacity. The total capacity is for twelve
thousand people. A PRIMARY raw sewage system is currently being
used and they do not anticipate switching to a secondary sewage plant
because of the vast amount of land available for future expansion of
the current POND systems. “ BUGS” are purchased from Ennix
Corporation and they are doing an excellent job keeping the ponds up
to standards.
The drain system for rain run off is adequate since Orland is built on a
virtual gravel bed. Occasionally, during heavy rains, the system does
not drain as fast as necessary because of the capacity of the existing
pipes. This is currently being corrected with new pipes. All water run
off flows to Lely Aquatic Park.
Additional lands currently not being used for new ponds will more
than satisfy any future growth and development needs for Orland.
However, piping to new ponds at the Orland Airport, as approved by a
City/ County agreement, was never completed.
69
The city has eight water wells and they are adding a new water
storage tank with a capacity of three quarters of a million gallons of
water. The existing one has a capacity of eighty thousand gallons.
There are city developer fees imposed on new developments which
can be used for infrastructure improvements. There are no County
Developer fees at this time. The developer pays the fees during the
permit process.
Curbs, sidewalks, and gutters are required for all new homes.
There is a sewer line now in place under the freeway to service the
West side.
The new subdivision located North of the arch has been annexed into
the city.
Property must be annexed into the city to obtain city services.
Increased costs due to Workman’s Compensation and medical benefits
are slowly siphoning money from current funds. This ultimately will
result in a loss in the quality of services.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Orland infrastructure is adequate with upgrades for additional
growth. However, funding sources are being diverted and additional
funds are necessary to maintain level of services.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Review fees for services and adjust, if necessary, to upgrade
infrastructure and maintain quality of services.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
City of Orland
70
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Willows Public Works and Infrastructure
I. PURPOSE:
To interview the City Manager of Willows and the Director of Public
Works to review the city’s infrastructure of the Public Works
Department, water, sewer, streets and storm drains.
II. BACKROUND:
Can the City of Willows infrastructure accommodate future growth?
III. FINDINGS:
The Public Works Department has twelve full- time positions.
The city maintains four parks, three city and one for the railroad.
The city only supplies water to three sites with the majority of water
supplied by the California Water Service Company.
Forty- two new homes are to be built within the Willows city limits
and an additional forty- three homes are proposed to be built adjacent
to the city. All impact fee’s will be paid by the developer and are
bonded in case the project is not completed. Two to three percent
growth for the city is projected over twenty years, with a population
of six thousand two hundred to ten thousand. The sewage system will
be updated with an eight million dollar grant. It will expand to serve a
ten thousand population. The water recycling project is funded by
grant funds. The city has hired two community service/ code officers
and are slowly improving their ability to respond to code violations.
The Fire Department handles the weed abatement program.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Willows infrastructure is adequate with upgrades for additional
growth.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
None
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
None
71
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Capay Joint Union Elementary School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Capay Joint Union
Elementary School’s representatives on February 4th, 2005, to witness
a fire drill.
III. FINDINGS:
The school consists of grades K through 8 with student enrollment
being approximately one- hundred twenty five to one- hundred thirty-five
students. They currently hold one fire drill per month.
The fire drill began at 11: 00 am and ended at 11: 04 am. Students
walked out of the classrooms single file to designated areas located
approximately one- hundred yards from buildings. Each teacher is
responsible for his/ her class. If, after taking roll call, all students are
present a large green card, approximately twenty by twenty inches,
was held high overhead by the teacher. If someone is missing a large
red card is held up. During this drill one student was missing. His
name was called out and he was located with another class where he
was on assignment at the time of the drill.
The secretary checks all restrooms on her way out and is responsible
for the card display. Drill procedures are posted in all classrooms.
At this time there are no “ Intruder Drills” taking place. It has been
discussed but no decision has been made as to when they should start.
This fire drill was carried out in a very orderly fashion.
The custodian was very helpful in explaining how the drill works and
in sounding the ( ear piercing) alarm.
The office secretary was very forthcoming with information. The
Superintendent/ Principal was on medical leave. By the nature of the
conversation they would have appreciated more members of the
Grand Jury being present.
72
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The school needs to holding drills for intruder- on- campus and finalize
drill procedures. The school also needs to install door locks, blinds
for windows, and a notification system for such procedures to account
for all students in classrooms. The school is still in the process of
applying for Financial Hardship Modernization funds to pay the
$ 7,162.31 needed for the door locks.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Initiate intruder- on- campus drills and procedures without further
delay. Install locking devices which may be locked from the inside of
the classroom and put blinds on the windows. Make sure drills are
practiced frequently and that a notification system which insures all
students are accounted for in the classrooms during the drill is in
adopted as part of the procedures for intruder alerts.
Complete application for Financial Hardship Modernization Funds
from the Office of Public School Construction. If application is not
successful, school should immediately pursue other sources to fund
door locks.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Capay Joint Union Elementary School
73
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
C. K. Price School
I. PURPOSE:
To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and
intruder on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jurors met with the Vice Principal of C. K. Price School on
January 13th, 2005 at 1: 35pm.
III. FINDINGS:
Instructional booklets regarding school procedures are given to
substitute teachers upon their arrival day of assignment. The Vice
Principal and Grand Jurors in attendance both found it difficult to
locate fire drill and intruder drill procedures in this booklet.
It was noted that only a map, without instructions, was displayed on
the walls in the classroom.
The fire department was notified of the pending fire drill scheduled
that day. The alarm was sounded. As Grand Jurors walked the
grounds to observe children and teachers it was noted that no lines
were formed as children exited the classrooms. Some children were
running to other children from other rooms. However, once they
were out on the field behind the school they did form lines and
teachers took roll call.
Most rooms were checked and found to be locked. The bell rang
signaling all was safe and the children returned to class in a semi-orderly
fashion.
It was noted that some rooms do not lock from the inside for intruder
protection.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Emergency procedures need to be located at the front of substitute
teacher manuals for easier access and review.
74
Remaining classrooms not equipped with inside door locks for
intruder protection need attention. Children running from classrooms
is cause for concern.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Move emergency procedures to the front of the substitute instructional
manual. Install locks on the inside of the doors, currently without
such devices, for intruder prevention. As an alternative, use the same
“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate
Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out
of the classroom while the door remains locked at all times. If an
ALERT is activated, this devise is pulled out from the inside, and the
door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members
from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping
them out of harms way.
School Administrators and Teachers should review drills procedures
and insure that students are instructed not to run during drills.
Everyone should go to his or her assigned areas quickly, quietly and
orderly, but not running.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
C. K. Price School
75
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Elk Creek School
I. PURPOSE:
To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and
intruder on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jurors attended a presentation and witnessed a fire drill at Elk
Creek School on February 18th, 2005.
III. FINDINGS:
The fire drill went off smoothly and in an orderly fashion. Teachers
and students seem well prepared for this type of emergency.
The school is funded with 10% Federal and 90% State funds.
Indian funds are approximately $ 7,000.00 per year. There are
approximately 130 children in the district. Only 2 classroom doors
lock from the inside. All others lock from the outside with the
exception of room number 2.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Because only two of the classrooms lock from the inside there are
serious concerns for the safety of teachers having to step outside the
classroom to lock doors in the event of an intruder on campus.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Install locks on the inside of the three remaining doors or use the same
“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate
Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out
of the classrooms while the door remains locked at all times. If an
ALERT is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and the
door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members
from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping
them out of harms way.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Elk Creek School
76
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Fairview School
I. PURPOSE:
To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and
intruder on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jurors attended and witnessed a fire drill/ evacuation on
October 19th, 2004 and met with the principal on January 10th, 2005 to
discuss possible areas of concern pertaining to these issues.
III. FINDINGS:
The emergency evacuation on October 19th, 2004 was executed
without incident and the subsequent meeting with the new principal
was both informative and interesting. Fairview School’s new
principal is genuinely concerned for the safety of the children and has
implemented a new and improved program outlining emergency
procedures. This program will be presented to the Site Council for
approval.
These new procedures, along with several drills will, undoubtedly,
help make Fairview School one of the best prepared schools in the
district.
Three rooms still need locking devices from the inside, for intruder
prevention, keeping faculty members from having to step outside the
classroom to lock the door placing them in harms way.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Grand Jurors have concluded that Fairview School’s proposed
emergency program is excellent.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Install locks on the inside of the three remaining doors or use the same
“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate
Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out
of the classrooms while the door remains locked at all times.
77
If an ALERT is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and
the door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members
from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping
them out of harms way.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Fairview School
78
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Hamilton Union School District
I. PURPOSE: To follow up on prior Grand Jury recommendations and
investigate the status of installation of hardware for door locking
device.
II. BACKROUND: The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury recommended the
schools install door locks that can be locked from the inside. The
School District responded on August 10th, 2004 and stated,
“ Retrofitting all doors that fall into this category with locking devices
which are approved by the State Fire Marshall will cost the District
approximately $ 20,000. This expense is not reflected in the District’s
current budget. The District will pursue obtaining a matching funds
JPA Safety Grant. If the District is successful in obtaining a grant,
$ 10,000 will be applied toward retrofitting during the school year
2005- 2006. If succeeding grant applications are forthcoming, an
additional and final $ 10,000 will complete the project during the
school year 2006- 2007. If the District is not successful in obtaining
JPA grant funding, it will be necessary to phase in the retrofitting over
a longer period.”
III. FINDINGS: The District has installed the locks on the multipurpose
rooms. However, installation on the classrooms is very expensive.
The JPA Grant is still available but the District cannot include the
matching funds in their current budget, at this time, because of the
uncertainty of possible State impact on school financing.
IV. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of teachers and students is important
& proper door locks would help ensure their safety.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The District should continue its efforts to fund this project and provide
matching funds for the JPA Door Lock Safety Grant.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Hamilton Union School District
79
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Lake School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the school principal
and determined their was one major issue that needed attention.
III. FINDINGS:
1. Practices for intruder drills include a lock down of the entire
campus.
2. All rooms locked from either the inside or the outside.
3. Procedures for all drills are posted in all classrooms.
4. The drill observed was carried out in an orderly manner.
5. All procedures were supervised and checked by the principal.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Doors not equipped with inside locking mechanisms do not provide
safety for teachers in the event of an intruder on campus. Teachers
must step outside these rooms to lock the door putting them in harms
way.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Install locks on the inside of all doors or use the same “ foam rubber”
device currently being used by Willow Intermediate Schools. It is
manufactured and designed to allow access in and out of the
classrooms while the door remains locked at all times. If an ALERT
is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and the door
automatically locks shut. This will prevent teachers from having to
step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping them out of harms
way.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Lake School
80
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Murdock Elementary School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the Vice Principal
who directed them to the principal on January 11th, 2005 at
approximately 9: 20am. A folder was offered to the Grand Jury listing
the procedures used for intruder drills along with fire and earthquake
drills.
III. FINDINGS:
Murdock Elementary School alternates between inside drills and
outside drills, having one drill per month. Code Blue is a practice
drill. Code Red is the real thing. Grand Jurors walked around with
the principal as she checked all doors to see if they were locked. She
noted any procedures which were not followed, Finding only one; a
light which had been left on. All lights are to be turned off, curtains
pulled and rubber blocks are removed from the doors securing them
from the inside. A sign with a CIRCLE in the window means all
children are present. A sign with a SQUARE in the window means a
student is not in the classroom. The students name is written on the
SQUARE. If students are out of the classroom or in the restroom they
are instructed to put their feet up in the stall. During outside drills all
students are to drop where they are and lay flat like stones. The
principal and vice- principal divided the campus to check rooms. The
total drill time took eight minutes. When all was clear an
announcement was made over the loud speaker that the code blue was
all clear. There is a teacher handbook in each room for substitute
teachers to review. With repeated practices students now know what
they must do in cases of such alerts. The drill went smoothly and the
principal was very informative and pleasant.
81
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Murdock Elementary seems well prepared for emergency procedures.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Continue practicing drills as scheduled.
Recommend a secondary ( backup) location for activating the alert
system, such as the teacher’s lounge.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Murdock Elementary School
82
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Plaza School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Plaza School’s principal
and observed a fire drill.
III. FINDINGS:
1. When the alarm was sounded all students and teachers moved
quickly and quietly to their assigned locations on the field.
2. All teachers and aids had their roll sheets and called roll to
insure one- hundred percent participation.
3. No students or employees remained in the buildings.
4. Upon inspection of the alarm system the annual alarm
inspection report for 2004 was not in place in the alarm box.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The fire drill was properly executed in a timely and efficient manner.
The equipment appeared to be in good working order, but the last
inspection report was not in the alarm box.
Construction was proceeding on new classrooms and other buildings.
All new construction meets latest state codes for door locks and other
hardware.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
After annual equipment inspections school staff should insure that
inspectors provide reports and that they are placed in the alarm boxes.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Plaza School
83
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Princeton Elementary School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Two Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Plaza School
representatives on February 24th, 2005 at approximately 10: 43 to
observed a Fire Drill.
III. FINDINGS:
Approximately 60% of the children are Spanish speaking. There are
special teachers assigned to these children.
Overall the school is well taken care of and seems up on all the latest
procedures.
FIRE DRILL:
1. When the alarm was sounded all students and teachers walked
or ran to their assigned locations on the playground.
2. Teachers checked their respective lists of names to see if all
children were present.
3. The school principal checked the bathrooms.
4. The superintendent checks with all teachers to make sure they
are present.
5. The superintendent gives the thumbs up to signal the end of the
fire drill. The alarm sounds until this sign is given.
6. The school bell rings as the signal for all students and teachers
to return to their classrooms.
One teacher was asked what she would do if one of her students was
missing during the drill. Her reply was that she would probably ask
another teacher to watch her class while she went looking for the
missing student.
84
At the beginning of the year all teachers and students review the rules
for emergency evacuations and they include a bus evacuation once per
year. All teachers attend training for lock down drills which are also
scheduled once per year. Some fire drills are unannounced.
Not all classrooms have telephones but teachers have cell phones and
classrooms have intercoms.
Classroom doors do not lock from the inside. However, the
installation of locks is in progress and has been approved since
January, 2005 with grant funding. “ North State Deferred Maintenance
Funds.”
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Fire Drill was properly executed in a timely and efficient manner.
The equipment appeared to be in good working order and evacuation
was well executed.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends fine tuning and reviewing the
written for the procedures for locating missing students during
emergency drills as one teacher seemed unsure of what to do in such a
case.
School Administrators and Teachers should review drills procedures
and insure that students are instructed not to run during drills.
Everyone should go to his or her assigned areas quickly, quietly and
orderly, but not running.
Make sure locks, now being installed, lock from the inside of the
classroom permitting the teacher to lock the doors without having to
step outside the classroom to accomplish this task which may put
them in harms way.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Princeton Elementary School
85
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Willows Intermediate School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the school principal,
and Vice Principal on January 11th, 2005 at approximately 1: 15.
III. FINDINGS: There are approximately five- hundred students. One
fire drill and one intruder drill are held each month with two disaster
drills being held each school year. A CODE BLUE was announced at
1: 15 and one member of the Grand Jury attended one classroom and
found the substitute teacher and all students were under desks.
Another Grand Juror attended the Nurses office and found four
students, one mother, and two members of the office staff secure. A
third Grand Juror walked around campus with the Vice Principal and
found all areas secured. All doors were secured by interior fitted door
lock bands. All exterior doors were fitted with a bar type lock as well.
All windows were either darkened and/ or shades were fitted for cover.
This drill took approximately twelve minutes. The school also has a
new telephone communication system.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
There is only one location to activate emergency procedures. Two
locations might be beneficial in cases where one area is subject to an
intruder and staff may not be permitted to sound the alarm from that
location.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Install a secondary location to activate emergency procedures other
than the office location. Continue practicing drills as scheduled.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Willows Intermediate School
86
2004- 2005
GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY
EVALUATION OF
RESPONSES
To
2003- 2004
Grand Jury Final Report
June 30th, 2005
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Board of Supervisors / Golden State Risk
Management Authority / City of Orland, All Glenn County School Districts
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 02
RECOMMENDATION: That GSRMA provide training to the member
agencies on how to deal with claims and claimants and the need for a
friendly and informative attitude; keeping in mind that members are public
agencies and public servants. The GSRMA should strongly urge members to
attend. A brochure should be provided to all members outlining the positive
aspect of good public relations and how to help claimants fill out claims and
the procedure for filing them. A claimant has a right to file a claim in a
timely manner without difficulty and should be given all the help needed,
with instructions, on where to file by trained agency personnel.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 09/ 21/ 04
The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response from Golden Risk
Management Authority, dated July 14, 2004 per attachment A which states:
Dear Judge Saint Evens:
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the following is Golden State Risk
Management Authority’s ( hereinafter GSRMA) response to the Glenn
County Grand Jury’s 2003/ 2004 Final Report. Specifically, pages 1 and 2
covering GSRMA.
GSRMA partially disagrees with the findings as stated on pate 1 of this
report. Our disagreements are as follows:
A. Member contributions are paid directly to the GSRMA to cover the
pooled layer and to purchase reinsurance, or excess insurance, or both,
depending on the specific program.
87
Attached you will find copies of GSRMA’s 2003/ 2004 Memorandums of
Coverage. These documents provide a clearer picture of how each program
is structured.
B. Per Government Tort Claims Act 910.4, GSRMA has provided all of its
Member Agencies with a claim form template. This document was adopted
by each Member Agency and is available to the public should they desire to
file a claim against said Public Agency. In addition, GSRMA has said claim
form template is available on its website, www. gsrma. org for any Member
Agency to download as needed.
In regards to said claim form, it is constructed as recommended by the
Government Claims Tort Act. It is set up in an easy to read format that
could be completed by anyone having a basic understanding of the English
language. It is not required by the Government Claims Tort Act that a Public
Agency have said form in any foreign language.
Enclosed you will find a copy of said template. As you can read, this
document clearly spells out what information is needed to file a claim
against any Public Agency.
GSRMA takes exception to the Grand Jury’s findings that GSRMA should
train its membership on how to train the public to sue at Public Agency.
GSRMA has clearly demonstrated it does provide service to its membership
in the steps that are necessary should the public wish to file a claim against
said Public Agency.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
88
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County Assessor, Department of Finance
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 04
RECOMMENDATION: There needs to be clarification of exactly what
A87 is and if its use is mandatory for counties in determining how costs are
allocated for each department. All county departments should be provided
this information.
RESPONSE: Letter dated August 6, 2004 from the Department of Finance.
A presentation was given at the Board of Supervisors meeting on March 18th,
2003, explaining the A- 87 plan. Additionally, the plan was further presented
at the management Council Meeting on April 8, 2003. These meetings were
properly noticed and all interested county departments were invited. A copy
of the Board report and Agenda Item Transmittal of that date will be re-issued
to all current county department heads.
The A- 87 plan is the only allowable cost allocation methodology for the
State of California and the Federal government. As such, its use is
mandatory in determining costs of each department.
The Finance Director concurred that the Board of Supervisors had the
ultimate authority to raise or lower each Department’s budget. As such,
taking A- 87 costs from each Department’s budget does not necessarily
reduce the Department’s level of funding. If appropriate, the Board can
simply raise a Department’s budget to offset the A- 87 changes.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
89
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Human Resource Agency ( HRA)
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 05
RECOMMENDATION: HRA needs to publicize and promote a more
positive image for their programs in order to have the services utilized by a
broader range of people; i. e., employers.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 19/ 04
The HRA fully concurs with this and has already initiated an
outreach/ marketing program which targets/ emphasizes employer programs
and services.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
90
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Child Welfare Re- Design of Glenn County Foster
Care
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 18
RECOMMENDATION: The Grand Jury needs to actively follow this
process. ( Child Welfare Redesign). A member of the Grand Jury should
attend the CICC meetings, to be aware of how the redesign proceeds. The
CICC agendas should be sent to the Grand Jury on an ongoing basis and
should be given a copy of the final Redesign Plan, and an overview
presentation by an HRA management team.
RESPONSE: The HRA concurs with this recommendation and appreciates
the Grand Jury’s interest in this important effort to improve mandated
services to children and families. A copy of the monthly CICC meeting
notices and proposed agendas will be forwarded to the Grand Jury ( P. O. Box
1023) beginning in September 2004. The Grand Jury will also be given a
copy of the final Redesign Plan ( when completed) and provided with an
overview presentation of the plan by the HRA management team if
requested by the 04/ 05 Grand Jury. The final Redesign Plan was received by
the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury in February of 2005.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
91
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn Medical Center Administration / Glenn
County Board of Supervisors
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 20
RECOMMENDATION: The Grand Jury should review quarterly progress
reports on the process of separation from Enloe Medical Center. Grand Jury
members should also attend foundation meetings and meet with the
administrator on a quarterly basis. The administration should provide
progress reports to the Grand Jury.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 07/ 19/ 2004
In accordance with reporting requirement, please find Glenn Medical
Center’s responses to the 2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report.
Representatives from Bill Casey and Associates and Glenn Medical Center
Administration meet with the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis with
updates regarding the facility. Minutes of these quarterly updates are
available for the Grand Jury. Should the Grand Jury wish to meet separately
with Bill Casey and Associates and the hospital administration, a quarterly
meeting could be scheduled to discuss the Enloe separation issue. Glenn
Medical Center would be happy to host this meeting following direction
from the Grand Jury. With respect to the newly formed Glenn Medical
Center Foundation, I have asked the Foundation Board to contact the Grand
Jury to advise as to the Foundation’s meeting schedule. I am sure the
Foundation Board would welcome attendance by Grand Jury members to
hear the progress and plans of the Foundation. The Hospital Administrator
would also attend this meeting. Mr. Vern Roberts, Foundation Board
Member, will contact Mr. Calonico to share the Foundation’s meeting
schedule.
Glenn Medical Center is committed to providing quality health care services
throughout the County and looks forward to working with the Grand Jury.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
92
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: C. K. Price School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE:
C. K. Price will be refitted with anti- intruder locks during the “ 04/ 05” school
year. The Team Concept will be continued for the “ 04/ 05” school year. This
program became effective once permanent employees were on the job and
retraining had taken place. The program will be monitored for effectiveness.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
93
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Capay Joint Union Elementary School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 19/ 04
The school has received a quote of $ 7162.31 from Johnny’s Lock and Safe.
This does not include keying and master keying of all locks. Also, the
District is in the process of applying for Financial Hardship Modernization
money. If approved, these state funds could be used to cover the cost of
installing the locks.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
94
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County Board of Supervisors
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: The Board concurs with the recommendations of the Grand
Jury, however, the Board has no jurisdiction over the school districts.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
95
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County School Board, Willows Unified
School Board, Willows High School, Willows Intermediate School, Willows
Elementary School, Office Of Education
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE:
It is always a pleasure to work with the members of the Grand Jury. This
year the focus for the education community was to review progress of the
2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommendation for intruder prevention and other
school operations and to determine the authority of the Superintendent.
Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have
a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and the individual school districts
have plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law
enforcement and the office of emergency services to talk about potential
problems and their solutions.
Your committee did a thorough job of reviewing the Superintendent’s
authority. AB 2756 was just passed which extended the AB 1200 budget
oversight for districts. We are currently determining what this will entail.
Under recommendation for the 2004 year you encouraged schools to use the
grant writer and apply for grants. With tight budgets I would heartily
endorse looking for extra grant funding. Unfortunately our county grants
writer is currently working on facilities and will not be available until we
complete the funding cycle for building projects. When those are completed
we will return to our grantsmanship. Thank you for your work and
dedication to the children of Glenn County.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
96
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Hamilton Elementary School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated July 28, 2004
The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury report recommended that locks were to be
installed on all doors to enable personnel to lock the doors from the inside.
In May, 2004, at considerable expense our district installed an “ inside
locking system” on all doors in all schools in our district. All exterior doors
are now compliant not only with the Grand Jury recommendations but also
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the State Fire Marshall.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
97
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Hamilton Union School District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated August 10, 2004
Regarding the third recommendation: Retrofitting all doors that fall into this
category with locking devises which are approved by the State Fire Marshall
will cost the District approximately $ 20,000.00. This expense is not
reflected in the District’s current budget. The District will pursue obtaining
a matching funds JPA Safety Grant. If the District is successful in obtaining
a grant, $ 10,000.00 will be applied toward retrofitting during the school year
2005- 2006. If succeeding grant applications are forthcoming, an additional
and final $ 10,000.00 will complete the project during the school year 2006-
2007. If the District is not successful in obtaining JPA grant funding, it will
be necessary to phase in the retrofitting over a longer period.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
98
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Lake School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 07/ 23/ 04
I discussed the findings with our Board of Trustees and wish to report on the
things we will be doing this year to address their findings:
We will check to see that all door hardware meets the latest state codes.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
99
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Mill Street School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: The team concept for custodial work was developed because
the custodian at one of the schools retired and was not replaced. There was
not a smooth transition to concept due to the necessity of retraining and the
long- term absence of two employees. After permanent employees were
hired and employees adapted to their new work environment, the program
became successful. The team concept will be monitored to be sure the kinks
have been worked out.
Safety money has been budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill
Street School.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
100
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Orland Unified School District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: The team concept is not used for maintenance only cleaning.
The concept is workable but was hamstrung by the long- term absence of two
employees. The program was running smoothly and effectively the last two
months of school.
As part of the modernization of Fairview School, anti- intruder locks were
installed on all classroom doors. Audio- visual curtains have been installed
and can be drawn in the event an intruder is on campus. The high school
already has the anti- intruder locks installed. Safety money has been
budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill Street.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
101
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Plaza School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 25/ 04
The Plaza School District is about to begin a construction program that will
replace some of our older portable classrooms and administrative offices. I
anticipate the start of construction in late July and a completion date of about
December of 2004. After the District completes their project the County
Office of Education will begin work an a new 3500 square foot structure on
our campus with a completion date near the end of the 2004- 2005 school
year. Some of the findings expressed in the report will be addressed during
construction.
Door locks - once again, new construction will be up to the latest state codes
and should be adequate for protection of staff and students.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
102
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Princeton Unified School District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE:
The District agrees with this finding. The District will comply with the
requirements outlined in the California Public Contract Code to install the
new locks. However, these requirements may not necessarily require the
District to undertake the competitive bidding process to complete these
project. Please note that prior to the Grand Jury’s issuance of its report, the
District was already in the process of obtaining estimates from appropriate
contractors to replace all classroom door locks at the Elementary School and
the Jr./ Sr. High School.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
103
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Stoney Creek Unified School District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE:
Stoney Creek School District, page 21, is actually Elk Creek High and
Elementary School ( K- 6), page 32 of 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Report.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW:
Report on page 21 recommends the re- evaluation of the Team Concept of
school grounds care and that all classrooms need inside/ outside door locks
for the protection of our children.
Report on page 32 states that Elk Creek High School’s and Elementary
School’s kitchens, bathrooms and grounds are very clean and well kept and
that all doors lock from the inside and NO RESPONSE IS REQUIRED.
Therefore, Stoney Creek School District ( Elk Creek) need not respond to
maintenance and door lock issues requested on page 21.
104
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Plaza School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 22
RECOMMENDATION: Fencing the school ground perimeter and provide
control gates. Install locks on doors for intruder prevention.
RESPONSE: Letter dated August 25, 2004
Need for fencing - The area in question has a new classroom being
constructed nearby and heavy equipment will be in and out of the area.
After construction is complete the fencing will be evaluated and replaced as
needed.
Door locks - once again, new construction will be up to the latest state codes
and should be adequate for protection of staff and students.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
105
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School
Board
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 22
RECOMMENDATION: Fencing the school ground perimeter and provide
control gates. Install locks on doors for intruder prevention.
RESPONSE: Letter dated July 20, 2004
Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have
a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and individual school districts have
plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law enforcement and
the office of emergency services to talk about potential problems and their
solutions.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
106
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Lake School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 23
RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors for intruder protection.
RESPONSE: Letter dated July 23, 2004
Door locks - We will check to see that all door hardware meets the latest
state codes.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
107
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School
District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 23
RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors for intruder protection.
RESPONSE: Letter dated July 20, 2004
Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have
a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and individual school districts have
plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law enforcement and
the office of emergency service to talk about potential problems and their
solutions.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
108
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Mill Street School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 24
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for the
keeping of the grounds and classrooms. Install door locks for intruder
protection. Determine if buildings contain any lead- based paint and remove
lead- based paint.
RESPONSE:
The API test scores at Mill Street are an impressive 726. This score equates
to a rank of five on a 10- point scale compared to all California elementary
schools. Compared to schools with similar demographics, Mill Street ranks
a seven out of a possible ten. A researched based- approach and data- driven
instruction will take the scores even higher. I issued a safety memo to all
Mill Street staff urging them to remove all combustible material from the
vicinity of heating units. A work order has been written regarding an
inspection of outlets in the library floor. A work order has also been
submitted to repair faulty faucets and drinking fountains. Flaking paint has
been removed from the cafeteria walls and the entire building has been
repainted. Anti- intruder locks are scheduled for installation within the next
two years. The team concept for custodial work was developed because the
custodian at one of the schools retired and was not replaced. There was not
a smooth transition to the new concept due to the necessity of retraining and
the long- term absence of two employees. After permanent employees were
hired and employees adapted to their new work environment, the program
became successful. The team concept will be monitored to be sure the kinks
have been worked out.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
109
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School
Board
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 24
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for the
keeping of the grounds and classrooms. Install door locks for intruder
protection. Determine if buildings contain any lead- based paint and remove
lead- based paint.
RESPONSE:
As part of the modernization of Fairview School, anti- intruder locks were
installed on all classroom doors. Audio- visual curtains have been installed
and can be drawn in the event an intruder is on campus. The high school
already has the anti- intruder locks installed. Anti- intruder locks are
scheduled for installation within the next two years. Safety money has been
budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill Street.
Flaking paint has been removed from the cafeteria walls and the entire
building has been repainted. The Team concept for custodial work was
developed because the custodian at one of the schools retired and was not
replaced. There was not a smooth transition to the new concept due to the
necessity of retraining and the long- term absence of two employees. After
permanent employees were hired and employees adapted to their new work
environment, the program became successful. The team concept will be
monitored to be sure the kinks have been worked out.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
110
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Fairview School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 25
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for
grounds and classroom maintenance. It is suggested that the principal apply
for a grant to continue the GATE program.
RESPONSE: The Team concept is not used for maintenance, only cleaning.
The concept is workable but was hamstrung by the long- term absence of two
employees. The program was running smoothly and effectively the last two
months of school. The team concept will continue with the newly hired staff
for the 2004- 2005 school year. The condition of the schools will be closely
monitored for maintenance and cleanliness.
The GATE program was not eliminated. On the contrary, hiring two new
and enthusiastic GATE coordinators has enhanced the program. The “ aging”
computers are Macs that some teachers prefer. Sixty new and reconditioned
IBM compatible computers are replacing the old MACS for the 2004- 2005
school year. Fairview is technically a Program Improvement School despite
the fact that it met overall growth targets each year. One subgroup failed to
meet the target in “ 00- 01” and a different group failed in “ 01- 02”. The
school greatly exceeded their growth targets for the “ 02- 03” school year in
all groups but must remain a PI school until all groups meet the targets two
years in a row. The new principal brought a new level of commitment to
teaching standards and motivated students to do their best. When the scores
come out for the “ 03- 04” school year, I strongly suspect that Fairview will
no longer be a PI school.
A work order to inspect and repair drinking fountains at Fairview School has
been issued.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
111
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows High School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 26
RECOMMENDATION: The school grounds and classrooms need
cleaning. The kitchen needs a thorough cleaning.
RESPONSE: The cleaning issues in the kitchen and the classrooms have
been addressed with the custodial staff. With the reduction of custodial
time, classrooms are only cleaned every other day. The kitchen is cleaned
every day and has received a thorough cleaning since the Grand Jury Report.
With the assistance of the ASB organization, the grounds are now being
cleaned regularly by the students. Administration is actively addressing
campus beautification with students and staff. “ Be proud of our school.
Keep it clean” is the them we’ve embraced at Willows High School.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
112
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows Superintendent of Schools
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 26
RECOMMENDATION: The school grounds and classrooms need
cleaning. The kitchen needs a thorough cleaning.
RESPONSE: Due to financial constraints, the Willows Unified School
District has been forced to reduce Custodial, Grounds and Maintenance
personnel. I’m certain it is obvious that, with fewer personnel, it has been
necessary that we prioritize our many tasks and complete those jobs that are
most important. Believing it to be appropriate, the District has implemented
and every- other- day classroom cleaning schedule. Specific areas, such as
bathrooms, cafeterias/ kitchens, offices and main hallways are cleaned at the
end of every day, however. Although this schedule is far from ideal, it does
provide for an adequate cleaning of all of our facilities. Strong emphasis is
now placed on the staff and students cleaning up after themselves and, as a
result less custodial time is required. In general, students throughout the
district are being held more responsible for campus beautification and
cleanliness.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
113
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows Intermediate School / Office of
Education / Glenn County School Board
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 27
RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors to lock from inside for
intruder protection. Replace playground bench.
RESPONSE: Currently the Willows Unified School District provides our
site with a foam rubber device, for each classroom, manufactured and
designed to allow access in and out of the classrooms while the door remains
locked at all times. If an ALERT is activated, the device is pulled out from
the inside, and the door automatically locks shut.
The District’s Safety Committee and Site Administration pursues and

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Letter to Presiding Judge I
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury Members II
Role of the Grand Jury III
2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Response Requirements & Instructions IV
CITY / COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Agricultural Commissioner 1- 2
City of Orland 3- 4
City of Willows 5- 6
Glenn County Public Libraries 7- 9
Exhibit: Orland Library Budget 10- 13
Local Agency Formation Commission 14- 15
Planning & Development Conflicts - Glenn County & Cities 16- 17
Exhibit: Orland response to proposed Glenn County 18- 23
General Plan Amendment
FINANCE
County / City Property Tax Splits 24- 25
Development Impact Fees 26- 27
Exhibit: Development Impact Fees - Orland/ Willows 28- 33
Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey 34
Grand Jury Copy Machine Lease ( Inland Leasing, Inc.) 35
HEALTH SERVICES
Glenn County Environmental Health 36- 37
Glenn Medical Center ( GMC) 38- 40
PUBLIC SAFETY
Glenn County Jail 41- 42
Glenn County Sheriff’s Department 43- 44
Intruder Alert Procedures 45- 46
Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall 47- 48
Orland Police Department 49- 50
Willows Police Department 51- 52
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
PUBLIC WORKS
Public Facilities Projects 53- 54
Butte City Boat Ramp 55
Fleet Management 56- 57
Exhibit: Title 14 - Fleet Management Policy 58- 64
Glenn County Airports 65- 66
North Willows Storm Drainage 67- 68
Orland Public Works and Infrastructure 69- 70
Willows Public Works and Infrastructure 71
SCHOOLS
Capay Joint Union Elementary School 72- 73
C. K. Price School 74- 75
Elk Creek School 76
Fairview 77- 78
Hamilton Union School District 79
Lake School 80
Murdock Elementary School 81- 82
Plaza School 83
Princeton Elementary School 84- 85
Willows Intermediate School 86
2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY EVALUATION OF
RESPONSES ( 2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report)
04- 02 Board of Supervisors, Golden State Risk Management 87- 88
Authority, City of Orland, All Glenn County Schools
04- 04 Glenn County Assessor, Department of Finance 89
04- 05 Human Resource Agency ( HRA) 90
04- 18 Child Welfare Re- Design of Glenn County Foster Care 91
04- 20 Glenn Medical Center Administration / Glenn County Board 92
Of Supervisors
04- 21 C. K. Price School 93
04- 21 Capay Joint Union Elementary School 94
04- 21 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 95
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
04- 21 Glenn County School Board, Willows Unified School Board, 96
Willows High School, Willows Intermediate School,
Willows Elementary School, Office of Education
04- 21 Hamilton Elementary School 97
04- 21 Hamilton Union School District 98
04- 21 Lake School 99
04- 21 Mill Street School 100
04- 21 Orland Unified School District 101
04- 21 Plaza School 102
04- 21 Princeton Unified School District 103
04- 21 Stoney Creek Unified School District 104
04- 22 Plaza School 105
04- 22 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 106
04- 23 Lake School 107
04- 23 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 108
04- 24 Mill Street School 109
04- 24 Office of Education, Glenn County School Board 110
04- 25 Fairview School 111
04- 26 Willows High School 112
04- 26 Willows Superintendent of Schools 113
04- 27 Willows Intermediate School, Office of Education, Glenn 114
County School Board
04- 28 Willows Elementary School, Glenn County School Board, 115
Office of Education
04- 29 Capay School, Office of Education, Glenn County School 116
Board
04- 31 Hamilton Elementary School 117- 118
04- 33 C. K. Price Middle School 119
04- 35 Orland High School, Orland Superintendent of Schools 120- 122
04- 36 Princeton Elementary and High School 123
04- 38 Hamilton High School 124
04- 40 Glenn County Superintendent of Schools 125
04- 42 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 126
04- 43 Willows Superintendent of Schools 127- 128
04- 46 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 129
04- 49 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 130
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
04- 50 Probation Department - Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall 131
04- 53 Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Works 132
04- 54 Department of Public Works 133
04- 56 Glenn County Department of Public Works 134- 135
04- 58 Provident Irrigation District Board of Directors 136
No Response Received As of April 1, 2005
04- 60 Princeton- Cordora- Glenn Irrigation District ( PCGID) 137
No Response Received As of April 1, 2005
04- 61 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 138
04- 62 Glenn County Public Works 139
04- 63 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 140
04- 64 Glenn County Public Works 141
04- 65 Glenn County Public Works 142
04- 66 Glenn County Public Works, Glenn County Board of 143
Supervisors
04- 67 Glenn County Public Works 144
04- 68 Glenn County Public Works 145
04- 69 Glenn County Public Works 146
04- 70 Bayliss Library and Park, Glenn County Public Works 147
Department
04- 71 Glenn County Board of Supervisors 148
2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY
P. O. Box 1023
Willows, Ca. 95988
June 30, 2005
The Honorable Donald Byrd
Presiding Judge
Superior Court, County of Glenn
526 West Sycamore Street
Willows, Ca. 95988
Dear Judge Byrd,
In compliance with California Penal Code, Section 933, the 2004- 2005
Glenn County Grand Jury respectfully submits its Final Report to the Court.
The report consists of the work of six committees: City/ County
Government, Finance, Public Health, Schools, Public Safety, and Public
Works.
The nineteen- member jury made inquiries and investigations and served as a
civil jury considering a variety of complaints.
The Jury expresses its appreciation for the cooperation and assistance
received from the County employees during its interview and investigation
process.
The members of the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury are honored to
have had the opportunity to be of service to our County. We sincerely hope
our efforts are received as a positive contribution.
Sincerely,
Al Calonico, Foreperson
Glenn County Grand Jury, 2004- 2005
I
2004- 2005 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY MEMBERS
Vicki Allen
Robert Banfill
Cynthia Boracci
Mark Brown
William Brown - Sergeant At Arms
Al Calonico - Foreperson
Dennis Champagne
Barbara Estes
Patricia Faver - Secretary
Deborah Jackson
Jean Langston
Ralph Langston
Brenda Lester
John McCarthy
Matthew McGann
Debra Ramsey
Bree Schmidt
Gary Taylor
Robert Torres
II
THE ROLE OF THE GRAND JURY
The Grand Jury is primarily an investigative body created by the United
States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and the California Constitution.
Nineteen residents of Glenn County are selected after interviewing 30 to 40
people. Grand Juries are impaneled annually and are officers of the Court,
but work independently. Most of the work is done by committees, which
include Public Safety, Schools, Public Works, Health Services, City/ County
Government and Finance. Other committees may be appointed as needed.
The Grand Jury and committees meet several times a month. The Jury
meets with County and City officials, visits local government facilities, and
conducts research on matters of interest and concern. The proceedings of
the Grand Jury are kept confidential. Jurors may not discuss the business of
the Jury with other individuals.
The Grand Jury receives letters from citizens expressing concern over a
particular matter of local government. Anyone may file a complaint with the
Grand Jury. The Grand Jury chooses which complaints to investigate. The
Grand Jury cannot investigate disputes between private parties. All
complaints to the Grand Jury are confidential.
All Grand Jury findings and recommendations are issued in written reports.
Each report must be approved by at least 12 members of the Jury. At the end
of the term ( June 30th), the Jury issues its final report. Copies of the report
are distributed to public officials, libraries, news media, and any entity that
is the subject of a report. Within ninety days, following the issuance of the
report, officials responsible for matters addressed are required to respond in
writing.
III
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS & INSTRUCTIONS
The legal requirements as contained in the California Penal Code, Section 933.05 are
summarized as follows:
The responding entity or person must respond in one of two ways:
( 1) That you agree with the finding.
( 2) The you disagree wholly or partially with the finding. The response shall
specify the part of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons for the disagreement.
Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding entity or person
must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented with a summary of the
implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented
in the near future with a time frame for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis. If an entity or person
reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the
analysis or study and time frame not to exceed six months. In this event,
the analysis or study must be submitted to the director of the agency being
investigated.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted
or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a
County department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of
Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests. The Board of Supervisors’
response may be limited, while the response by the department head must address all
aspects of the finding or recommendations.
Two working days prior to the release of the Final Report, the Grand Jury will provide a
copy of the portion of the report to all affected agencies or persons. No officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose the contents of the
report prior to its public release.
Section 933( c) of the Penal Code provides two different response times.
( 1) Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond
within 90 days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of
the Superior Court.
( 2) Elective Officer of Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of
agencies who are required to respond must do so within 60 days to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an informational copy
provided to the Board of Supervisors.
IV
2004- 2005
GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
June 30th, 2005
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Agricultural Commissioner
I. PURPOSE:
To review the Glenn County Agricultural Commissioner’s programs,
goals, and objectives.
II. BACKROUND:
The Agricultural Commissioner’s Office consists of six areas.
Environmental Protection, Consumer Protection, Special Services,
Weights and Measures, Air Pollution Control, and Vegetation and
Environmental Management.
III. FINDINGS:
Staffing is adequate. The department has seventeen full time
positions, and vacancies are filled at a lower grade position. Six
employees will retire within three to five years. Sixty- three percent of
the departments budget is funded from outside sources. Total
reductions in the budget for the last three years is two- hundred- fifty-two
thousand five- hundred fourteen dollars. The agricultural revenue
for the county is three- hundred- eighteen million dollars annually. The
Department has a twenty- five acre plot of land to test for field pests
and insects which they sweep and check for any infestations. The
Department has budgeted eighty- eight thousand dollars for home
hazardous waste pickup. Less than five percent of the gas pumps
tested in the county fail tests. Rice burning is down to twenty- one
point four percent of all county rice fields.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Agricultural Department is well managed and performs a wide
variety of services for Glenn County.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
The structure of all fines or citations imposed by the Agricultural
Department be reviewed to include all costs of legal services.
1
Build an Agricultural Extension Center on county property located
near the existing county office. This would be a one stop building for
all agricultural related needs. The building could lease office space to
Farm Credit, USDA, Farm Advisors and other Agricultural related
agencies.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Agricultural Commissioner
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
2
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
City of Orland
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the City of Orland
and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints and their
ability to operate effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members interviewed the Orland City Manager on
October 5th, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
There is a major area of concern regarding the amount of office space
currently in use. The City Manager states the he requires more space
to function properly. At the time of this interview the budget for 2005
was not yet complete. The city gets approximately twenty- five
percent of the property taxes collected locally and thirty- three percent
from sales taxes and impact fees. Plans are being developed to find
new quarters for the Orland Police Department. The City Manager is
appointed by City Council and has been in office for two and one half
years. The department consists of the City Manager and forty- three
staff members. The number of staff members has not changed since
1990. In the next ten years projected expansions for single family
dwellings include some one- thousand two- hundred homes with eight-hundred
multi- family residences.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
With the current growth, the major problems facing City Hall are lack
of office space and the relocating of the Orland Police Department.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Explore the possibilities of relocating the Orland Police Department,
either permanently or temporarily, to the now, unoccupied, Sheriff’s
substation at 821 South Street in Orland. City Hall could then expand
to occupy the Police Department.
3
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Orland City Manager
Orland City Council
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
4
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
City of Willows
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the City of Willows
and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints and their
ability to operate effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members interviewed the Willows City Manager on
October 4th, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
One major area of concern, regarding the city’s ability to maintain
quality of life, is with State delays and cancellation of important
programs.
There have been no major changes in the last six months other than
the ongoing improvement with the old water supply system and
sewage treatment plant. If funds become available, improvements are
planned for the streets and sidewalks. The new budget was currently
at the printers as of this interview. The City receives approximately
twenty percent of their funds from property taxes. Other sources are
sales taxes and development fees.
The City Manager’s position is appointed by the City Council. The
department consists of the City Manager and thirty- six staff members.
The city presently has an infrastructure valued at approximately five
to six million dollars with private investors willing to invest in the
quality of life in Willows. In the past, a large portion of the county
has been annexed into the city. There are two housing tracts approved
for single family homes. Commercial property plans include Wal-
Mart’s plan to expand from eighty- six thousand to one- hundred eight-six
thousand square feet. There are plans for a new Holiday Inn
Express and for Superior Products ( Budweiser) to build a large new
facility on the east side. Starbuck’s Coffee has plans to locate in
Willows, as do a couple of fast food establishments. The City has
property zoned for an industrial park.
5
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The city has major concerns with the State budget problem. The
League of California Cities predicts major cuts for all cities across the
State. Current monies due are not being paid. This is making it very
difficult to make plans and accept proposals for future needs when the
State simply delays or cancels programs. This problem may change in
three years. However, the City’s concern seem justified at the present
time.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
None
6
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Public Libraries
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate the budget cuts by Glenn County as they relate to
Glenn County Public Libraries.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County funding of the public libraries has been cut, roughly,
fifty per cent over the past two years. The cities have been able to
supplement cuts in order for the libraries to survive. While the cities
increased library funding has been necessary and appreciated, it is not
expected to continue in such significant percentages. Disproportionate
General Fund budget cuts for the county library system will make it
difficult for the libraries to function at existing levels if the cities
aren’t able to offset the cuts with increased funding each year.
III. FINDINGS:
The public libraries of Glenn County are to be funded by the county,
and run by the cities. As recently as two years ago, the libraries
considered themselves to be in decent financial shape. With county
funding maintaining consistent levels, more or less, year after year.
With the cities supplementing library funding, the libraries were able
to function in such a capacity that there was no need to cut their most
important resource, staff. Some libraries have volunteer groups
called “ Friends of the Library. They provide valuable hours of service
to the libraries. The “ California Tele- Connect Fund” has helped keep
telecommunication more affordable to the libraries. The Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation helped the Orland Library establish
stronger computer services. Budget cuts have been implemented, but
library visitation has not waned. The Orland Library is visited by over
two- hundred- fifty people per day, while the Willows Library averages
around one- hundred- twenty. The Bayliss Branch is open on Tuesdays
and the Elk Creek Branch is open on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
7
The Bayliss and Elk Creek branches have been nearly closed in the
past, but community fundraising and support has kept them open. The
Willows Library is open twenty- nine hours a week, Tuesday through
Saturday. The Orland library is open thirty- seven hours per week,
Monday through Friday. As a rule, materials and maintenance are the
first things cut when libraries are in financial binds, with staff being
the last to be cut. The Orland Library employs five full- time and three
part- time staff. Although two full- time employees are retiring and
lack of funding might not allow for the replacement of the full- time
staff. The Willows Library employees two full- time staff and five
part- time staff. Budget cuts have hurt the face- to- face service that the
library has traditionally been able to provide. This year, the libraries
were given the budget without the ability to discuss it beforehand, as
they had in the past.
Percentage- wise, the county’s funding of the libraries is as low as its
ever been and it has probably gone as low as it can go.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Library services and their role in the education of the community are
unquestionably an important part of the county. The fact that the need
for library services to be part of the General Fund clearly
acknowledges the importance of the existence of a library system.
However, for a county to choose to maintain a library system without
adequate funding, disproportionate cuts in library services will not
allow for continued excellence in the quality of service that Glenn
County libraries provide. With population growth in the county the
necessity of public libraries will only increase. If, as expected, the
cities are unable to give more funding to the libraries each year the
libraries will be unable to stay open for as many hours as they are now
and will not be able to continue to adequately staff for the face- to- face
service that good libraries provide.
Willows will not be able to afford to supplement the Elk Creek &
Bayliss cuts in the future.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
The librarians of the county should be allowed to offer input to the
county regarding their fate before being given a no- questions- asked
budget to accept.
8
While it goes without saying that services such as public protection,
safety and public assistance are necessary for the community, it
should not be discounted that library services and education are
entities that influence the General Fund across the board. A literate,
educated society will reduce crime and the need for increased
incarceration facilities. Education was the only budgeted area to be
cut more than thirty per cent by the county ( the only other are to
experience decreased funding - Public Protection/ Safety - endured a
one point five percent decrease) from the previous year. Library
services decreased thirty- seven percent. Considering the relatively
small operating budget of the libraries in the past, County funding of
education and the libraries should be expanded. Therefore, we
recommend the following:
1) Basically, county residents are 50% of the Library patrons. The
County should, therefore, pay half the cost of providing library
services.
2) The library should have a voice in the budget process.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Director of Finance
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
9
10
11
12
13
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Local Agency Formation Commission
I. PURPOSE:
To determine whether or not the Local Agency Formation
Commission ( LAFCO) is an independent agency. Also, to determine
if there were city and county planning conflicts due to the fact that
LAFCO is currently staffed by county employees.
II. BACKROUND:
The Grand Jury interviewed various heads of City and County
Government in order to find out if LAFCO is functioning
independently, without City and County conflict, in accordance with
the law.
III. FINDINGS:
The Orland City Manager says that LAFCO should be independent.
Each city contributes one third of the LAFCO budget. Orland’s City
Manager mentions that MSRs and Sphere of influence costs are paid
now by the city. He also mentions that the County Planning and
Public Works Director is the director of LAFCO and this is unusual
for counties.
The Willows City Manager doesn’t think that it makes any sense to
staff LAFCO any differently than it is now. The Willows City
Manager believes that it would cost too much money to independently
staff LAFCO.
The County Planning and Public Works Director believes that LAFCO
is ensuring that districts are efficient and well- planned. LAFCO
hasn’t met in almost a year but will be meeting soon to discuss the
inclusion of Thunder Hill Raceway to the water district. Part of the
County Planning and Public Works Director’s job description is that
he heads LAFCO.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
LAFCO is not an agency separate from Glenn County staffing, but
economical factors limit hiring an outside agency at this time.
14
Considering how infrequently LAFCO meets, it is not fiscally
responsible to fund an outside agency.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendations are necessary, however the Grand Jury would
like written confirmation from County Counsel that the LAFCO in
Glenn County is legally compliant with statues defining the
independence of the agency.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Counsel
15
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Planning and Development Conflicts
Between County and Cities
I. PURPOSE
To determine the nature of communication and conflicts between
Glenn County and the cities within Glenn County, with regard to
planning and development issues.
II. BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury interviewed various City and County staff members
and inquired specifically about the manner of communication between
all groups and their overall satisfaction with the planning and
development process.
III. FINDINGS
The current County Planning and Public Works Director has
encountered some lack of communication with the cities, specifically
with Orland, claiming they have not receiving some County
correspondence. Monthly lunch meetings between City and County
leaders have proven beneficial in communication efforts. The County
Planning and Public Works Director also recommends the
development of a pre- development round- table with prospective
developers in efforts to further communications in planning.
The City of Willows is satisfied with the level of communication
between themselves and the County. The Willows City Manager
meets with the County Planning and Public Works Director on a
regular basis. He makes note of the fact that his relationship with the
County has been easy because their offices are down the street from
each other. Also, Willows does not have as much development and
pressure as Orland.
In Orland, the City Manager acknowledges problems in
communication with the County but that things are improving.
Orland’s hiring of a full- time planner has made communication easier
for the City. The Orland City Manager mentioned that he’s starting to
receive notice of development applications.
16
However, recent proposed County development brought strenuous
objections from the City of Orland. The City felt the development
would inhibit the future “ orderly and rational expansion” of urban and
residential uses and services to the areas. In prior years, the County of
Glenn and the City of Orland worked together and jointly adopted a
general plan that directed growth in Orland and the surrounding
planning area. In 2003 the City of Orland amended its general plan
without joint cooperation with the County. As a result, the County
plan and the current City plan were not jointly adopted. In addition,
the Orland plan is now outdated, after only two years.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Recent efforts to maintain monthly meetings between all planning
staff is a step in the right direction. All planning staff see these
meetings as appropriate methods of communication. A joint planning
effort between Orland and Glenn County, to revise and update their
general plans, would provide more consistent development policies in
Orland and the surrounding planning area.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Glenn County Grand Jury recommends a joint planning effort to
structure a cooperative planning direction. The Grand Jury
specifically recommends a written, Cooperative General Plan between
the incorporated Cities and the County. Both groups should also
ensure that legal requirements are met for all methods of
correspondence and notification in matters of planning.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED
Glenn County Planning and Public Works Director
City of Orland
City of Willows
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
County / City Property Tax Splits
I. PURPOSE
To investigate whether or not Assembly Bill 8 property tax splits are
equitable.
II. BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill Eight ( AB 8) was implemented in 1979 and established
a method of allocating property tax revenues to local government
agencies. The State of California completed an audit in 2003 which
determined that Glenn County was in accordance with AB 8
allocation. The Grand Jury asked various City and County staff
members whether or not they found the AB 8 splits to be equitable.
III. FINDINGS
By interviewing the County Planning and Public Works Director, the
Willows City Manager and the Orland City Manager it was clear that
each entity believes it is being shorted by the AB 8 tax split. The
County Planning Director mentioned that outside firms are being
considered to determine whether or not the current fifty/ fifty
City/ County splits are equitable. But, finding the right firm has not
been easy. He mentioned that the City of Orland had hired the former
City Manager of Roseville to assess the splits. According to The
County Planning Director, part of the problem is that the cities and
county are competitors for every piece of the property tax dollar and
they each believe they are entitled to seventy cents on the dollar, but
are settling on fifty/ fifty splits.
The Willows City Manager has accepted the fifty/ fifty split between
the cities and the county. However, the County Planning Director
feels that it should rightfully be swayed more towards his side in a
seventy/ thirty split. The Orland City Manager believes that the cities
withstand a greater burden and are entitled to a seventy/ thirty split.
The Orland City Manager asked for a fifty/ fifty split as a compromise,
but is of the opinion that the city can live with the inequitable split for
the time being.
24
It was The Orland City Manger’s hope that the hiring of an outside
consultant would help assist in the development of a master agreement
between the cities and county. He still believes that the best way to do
a proper split would be to conduct a study, but that the study would
cost a minimum of sixty thousand dollars. All of this being said, the
Orland City Manager maintains that the lack of a formal split
agreement is not delaying any development.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
In prior years, the City / County AB- 8 Tax split was 54/ 46. Recently
the City of Orland has given up some funds and agreed to a 50/ 50
split, although the Orland City Manager feels the City is entitled to
70%. The County also feels it is entitled to 70%. It is clear that each
side is dissatisfied with its share of the split at the current fifty/ fifty
ratio.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury strongly recommends a joint group of existing City
and County government leaders be devised to negotiate a formal and
universally accepted split of AB 8 property tax dollars.
V. RESPONSE REQUIRED
County of Glenn
City of Willows
City of Orland
25
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Development Impact Fees
I. PURPOSE
To investigate the possibility of the County charging developers for
impact fees in much the same way the cities are now charging.
II. BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury interviewed three representatives of city and county
government. The County Planning and Public Works Director, was
interviewed on the county side, and city managers of Orland and
Willows were interviewed to represent the views of the incorporated
cities. Currently only the cities of Glenn County are charging impact
fees for development within cities limits.
III. FINDINGS
The county representative acknowledges that they don’t charge
developer impact fees at this time but he would like to see a change in
this policy. The county believes that a study is needed to determine
how to charge for developer fees. The County Planning and Public
Works Director recommends that Glenn County could use a recent
study done by Butte County to support the viability of charging county
impact fees. In the words of The County Planning and Public Works
Director, the absence of developer fees will lead to the “ future
deterioration of services.”
The Orland City Manager pointed out that county development
brought no impact fees to fund the city services that these county
residents would ultimately be using. The Orland City Manager
believes that impacts in county planning are even more important to
the cities in many instances. While the city has developer impact fees,
they are one- time- only fees and can’t perpetuate some of the services
and, coupled with the fact that county land- use designation isn’t
always in the best interest of city growth plans, the cities are often
burdened with extra costs to provide services.
26
The Willows City Manager acknowledged that the city of Willows
charges different impact fees for different areas of development.
Developers are required to submit evaluations of development before
approval and, if development commences, the work is bonded in the
event that the city might end up picking up the costs. Some developers
decide to back out when they don’t like the looks of the fees. Copies
of development proposals are given to the members of an informal
group of city and county leaders. This group consists of The Human
Resources Agency Director, The County Planning and Public Works
Director, The Orland City Manager, and The Willows City Manager.
The Willows City Manager believes that there are no inconsistencies
between Willows and Glenn County with regard to planning, but does
acknowledge that Willows’ small footprint ( two and one half square
miles), tends to make growth in the Willows area less controversial
than cities like Orland.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
City and County staff agree that the County should charge developer
impact fees.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Glenn County should use a study and implement county development
impact fees in Glenn County.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED
Board of Supervisors
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey
I. PURPOSE:
To acknowledge the Glenn County Grand Jury’s receipt of the Glenn
County Assessment Practices Survey Report.
II. BACKROUND:
Section 15646 of the Government Code requires the State Board of
Equalization to survey each county to determine the adequacy of the
practices and procedures used by the County Assessor in valuation of
properties and related duties. Section 15646 requires the report be
sent to specific state and local government officials and that it also be
made available to other interested parties for their information upon
request. The Glenn County Grand Jury was also sent a copy of the
report.
III. FINDINGS:
The Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey Report was received
by the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Glenn County Assessment Practices Survey Report was reviewed
by the 2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury and found the report
acceptable.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
None
34
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Grand Jury Copy Machine Lease
Inland Leasing, Inc.
I. PURPOSE
To determine the feasibility of continuing the copy machine leased for
the Grand Jury from Inland Leasing, Inc.
II. BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury has a copy machine under lease through Inland
Leasing, Inc. of Chico, California. The Grand Jury also has a
maintenance agreement for the leased copy machine through Inland
Business Systems of Chico, Ca.
III. FINDINGS
The Grand Jury determined that the copy machine lease will expire in
June of 2005.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The Grand Jury concurs with the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Final Report
with the fact that the number of copies required to be printed by the
Grand Jury does not justify the annual cost of the copy machine lease
and has elected not to continue the lease upon expiration. The Grand
Jury will be better off purchasing a smaller, less sophisticated machine
or have copies made at a local printers.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury purchase
a smaller, less sophisticated machine or have copies made at a local
printers.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED
None
35
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Environmental Health
I. PURPOSE:
To meet with Glenn County’s Director of Environmental Health
review administrative operations and agency service related to
environmental issues such as the West Nile Virus.
II. BACKROUND:
Several members of the Glenn County Grand Jury met with Glenn
County’s Director of Environmental Health who welcomed questions
and offered facts related to administrative operations and agency
services and explained the West Nile Virus issue was not a serious
problem, in his opinion.
III. FINDINGS:
Currently there are three full time staff members as well as the
director. The director’s salary is paid by both county and state
funds. The department monitors retail food sales such as restaurants
and grocery stores. They also monitor rabies control within Glenn
County and issue permits.
The director was kind, receptive and very informative. When
presented with questions concerning the West Nile Virus issue he
related several facts which dispelled any rumors concerning the
seriousness of the issue. Among them was the fact that chances of any
Glenn County resident contracting this virus were extremely rare and
that concerns should be directed on issues surround the public waste
facility and state laws regarding the depth of mandated wells to
monitor toxic gases. He stated the landfill site is currently safe but
state laws require deep wells which are not practical in measuring
amounts of ground surface gases. Another concern is the county must
purchase the lands so that permits may be issued and the purchase of
this property is meeting resistance from the landowner. He also stated
the cause of the pollution in the ocean shoreline of Southern
California is not related to septic systems in the North State and new
laws, currently being
36
presented at the State level, may pose serious problems because of the strict
monitoring of these septic systems and the lack of staffing to meet new
demands placed on increased inspection requirements is another important
area of concern.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
At the time of the interview, the Glenn County Grand Jury agreed
with the Director of Environmental Health’s presentation of facts and
his conclusion that West Nile Virus was not an area of great concern.
However, a recent death of a young man in the Capay area, from
complications related the West Nile Virus, offers new concerns
regarding the facts first presented during the interview. There are also
concerns related to the land fill and new State laws.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Board of Supervisors finalize the process to acquire land
needed for the Glenn County Land Fill as soon as possible.
2. The establishment of a county wide mosquito abatement
district.
3. The Director of Environmental Health continues to monitor and
respond to new State law that may impact North State
development.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Director of Environmental Health
Board of Supervisors
Planning and Public Works
37
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn Medical Center ( GMC)
I. PURPOSE:
To review Glenn Medical Center’s service to the community. To
observe the current condition of the building and its economic
viability to remain open in the future.
II. BACKROUND:
The Glenn County Grand Jury met with the hospital administrator and
attended a session discussing several programs/ plans currently under
development, on October 13, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
1. Jared Garrison, M. D. joined the Medical Staff in July as a fulltime
physician in the hospital’s Family Care Clinic. In addition to
providing patient services in the clinic, Dr. Garrison, along with other
medical staff members, is assisting GMC in the development of a
Worker’s Compensation program for area employers.
2. Dr. Larry Highman, Board Certified General Surgeon has joined
the hospital to provide endoscopy and outpatient surgical services. He
is a member of the Colusa Regional Medical Center Board of Trustees
and Foundation and a respected physician in the community.
3. Glenn Medical Center is developing a broader base of physician
clinics. In the 2004- 2005 fiscal year, the hospital will offer a Hepatitis
C clinic, a new Worker’s Compensation clinic, and an OB/ GYN
clinic.
4. Glenn Medical Center is in the midst of a fund drive to bring
mammography back to Glenn County. The hospital anticipates having
this service on board by January 1st, 2005. It is anticipated that 50 to
60 tests will be done on a monthly basis given a sampling of area
physicians and allied health providers.
38
5. The hospital, in cooperation with Colusa Regional Medical Center,
will offer mobile MRI services on a twice monthly basis. The
expected start date is December 1, 2004.
6. Glenn Medical Center is exploring acquisition of a Dexa Scanner
for bone densitometry testing. This may be the hospital’s next major
fund raising project following the mammography services.
7. The hospital is currently licensed for fifteen acute beds, with
another thirty- four being held in reserve. Of these fifteen beds, GMC
is awaiting approval from CMS and their fiscal intermediary to utilize
a portion of these beds for what are termed, “ swing patients”. These
are patients who do not qualify for acute care but who are awaiting
nursing home placement or other lower levels of care.
8. Glenn Medical Center continues to operated through a lease
arrangement with Enloe Medical Center and William Casey, Inc.
Enloe has engaged Mr. Casey to provide management services to
Glenn Medical Center and has appointed Woody Laughnan Jr. as day-to-
day administrator through December 31st, 2004.
9. The existing hospital building meets current standard. However,
this building will not meet standards in the year 2013 without adding
additional buildings or portables outside the main building for certain
services. This building will not meet the year 2030 standards.
Several hospitals in other rural areas will not meet the year 2030
standards as well.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Grand Jurors have concluded Glenn Medical Center’s current outward
appearance needs improvement in the area of landscaping. Along
with much needed improvements to the landscaping GMC needs to
develop a positive public image through improved public relations
locally as well as in surrounding communities to draw patients back to
this location for their medical needs.
39
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Solicit local non- profit organizations such as the one used at the Glenn
County Fairgrounds or other organizations such as the Boy Scouts of
America. Other possibilities include local church organizations, and
public volunteers such as senior citizens groups for assistance in the
area of planting, beautification, and maintenance.
Develop a public relations media campaign for Glenn County and
surrounding areas.
Develop funding sources for expansion and improvements to help
meet the 2013 standards. Work with other rural hospitals and state
legislators to amend 2030 standards to keep rural hospitals open and
viable.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn Medical Center Administration
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
40
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Jail
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current conditions at the Glenn County Jail and assess
any needs or concerns regarding this facility.
II. BACKROUND:
Members of the Glenn County Grand Jury toured the Glenn County
Jail on November 10th, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
The population of the jail at the time of this tour was approximately
one- hundred- two inmates. The facility can hold a maximum of one-hundred
forty- four inmates. With one- hundred- two inmates and three
staff members on duty, the ratio is about thirty- four inmates per staff
member. It takes approximately forty- five to sixty minutes for most
bookings. The facility has only one padded cell which, at times, is a
problem. The jail currently contracts for space with Tulare and
Colusa Counties. The general appearance of the facility ranged from
poor to good. There were many areas, including doors, floors and
walls that are in need of painting throughout the facility. The kitchen
floor needs to be swept and cleaned. The floor was wet and very
slippery. The grand Jury visited the kitchen during the evening meal
preparation. The cove base along the walls and floor is in need of
repair or replacement. At the time of this tour the kitchen floor posed
a safety hazard for employees and inmates. The food seemed well-prepared.
There was a distinct odor throughout the facility and the
lighting system was not working in the visitation area. The staff
appeared more efficient and organized than had been reported in
previous Grand Jury findings. The area had an effective layout with
good scheduling. Additional cameras are to be added for the
observation tower.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Proper maintenance of this facility seems to be lacking.
41
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The kitchen floors need repair/ repainting. The kitchen base coving
needs to be repaired/ replaced. The floor needs to be maintained at a
higher lever of sanitary standards. Lighting needs to be
repaired/ replaced in the visitation area. It is further recommended
there be an addition of more cameras.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Sheriff
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
42
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Sheriff’s Department
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the department and
discuss possible problems with new budgetary constraints and its
ability to serve the public effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
The Grand Jury interviewed the Glenn County Sheriff’s Department
on November 3rd, 2004 and found several issues which may have
significant impacts on its ability to serve the public effectively.
III. FINDINGS:
The Glenn County Sheriff’s Department received funds from the State
of California in the amount of five- hundred thousand dollars. It was
used to subsidize the department this year. And, it helped save many
jobs. Concerns are that, without this funding in future years, jobs will
be lost and service to the community will suffer. The Sheriff’s
Department annual cost to the general fund is approximately six
million dollars.
Funds generated from the 9- 1- 1 rollover calls are approximately one-hundred
twenty thousand dollars per year from the Orland and
Willows Police Departments. And, funds generated from booking
fees for the California Highway Patrol are approximately five
thousand dollars.
Due to cutbacks in funding and the lack of officers on patrol, the
department is currently prioritizing calls with those posing the greatest
danger to person or public safety being given top priority. Small
crimes such as thefts or robberies, not involving confrontation
between those being robbed and those committing the crime, are
usually handled the next day.
The sheriff is planning a visit the Planning Commission meeting in
Mid- November to petition for a zoning review and study for impact
fees on new development which will help cover costs resulting in the
need for increased services.
43
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Budgetary constraints and the necessary cut backs which accompany
such constraints present serious problems to the community. The
Sheriff’s Department will, undoubtedly, not have the ability to serve
the community as effectively as they have in past years. This situation
will only worsen as the community grows.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the Grand Jury to the Board of
Supervisors to implement a one- time impact fee of approximately
one- thousand five- hundred dollars to two- thousand dollars from
developers for all new residences in Glenn County to help cover the
costs of increased services for Law Enforcement.
The Grand Jury also recommends a citizens patrol program be formed
to help with crime watch / VIP style, or perhaps, SWORN DEPUTY
style.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
Glenn County Sherrif’s Department
44
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Intruder Alert Procedures
I. PURPOSE:
To determine the procedures regarding an Intruder Alert Lockdown
between the Orland Police Department and the Orland Unified School
District
II. BACKROUND:
The Grand Jury interviewed the Orland Chief of Police and the
Superintendent of Schools to review procedures for communicating,
for school lockdown, in the event of an intruder alert.
III. FINDINGS:
In 2004 there was a bank robbery at the Orland Branch of the Bank of
America located approximately four blocks from Orland High School
and approximately five blocks from Mill Street Elementary School.
Following the robbery there were various law enforcement agencies at
the bank, including the Orland Police Department. There was no
communication to the school district, from the various law
enforcement agencies, for a possible intrusion alert from the bank
robbery suspect.
The Superintendent of Schools drove by the Bank of America and
continued on to his office located on sixth street. The Superintendent
states that he called the Orland Police Department and then called the
schools and ordered a lock down. The Grand Jury asked the Police
Chief who was responsible to call the school district for a possible
intruder alert lockdown. The Grand Jury was advised that the Police
Chief makes the call, when necessary.
The Grand Jury did not see a written procedure from the Police Chief
for an intruder lock down. After the incident, the Superintendent held
a debriefing meeting with the school principals to discuss the
lockdown procedures and possible ways to improve the process.
However, according to the Superintendent, he did not have a post
incident meeting or debriefing with the Orland Police Department to
discuss ways to improve communications.
45
In December of 2004 several principals attended a training session on
emergency procedures and the School District is in the process of
updating its procedure manual on this topic.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
During this situation there was no direct communication between the
Orland Chief of Police and the Orland Superintendent of Schools.
The Chief did not feel a school lockdown was warranted and the
Superintendent acted without talking to the Chief or another Incident
Commander. The incident may have caused some inconveniences at
the school, but fortunately, no one was injured or endangered. The
Grand Jury is very concerned about improving the communication
process between the Orland Police Department and the schools
regarding lockdowns. There certainly should have been a meeting or
a debriefing between the Orland Police Department and the schools
after the incident.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Orland Police Department and the Orland School District meet
and adopt written procedures for intruder alert lockdowns, including
completing the update of the School Procedure Manual.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Orland Police Department
Orland Unified School District
46
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions at the Jane Hahn Juvenile
Hall and assess any needs or concerns regarding this facility.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members toured Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall on October 13th,
2004 and a follow- up interview was performed on October 19th, 2004.
III. FINDINGS:
According to State standards the Juvenile Hall is short one line staff
member. The Director has done some fine work in writing grants and
securing additional funding to improve this facility. She is obviously
dedicated to the children under her charge. The philosophy and
attitude of management and staff is great.
An absence of fire extinguishers in the kitchen area was noted. The
kitchen is being equipped with a new stove, walk- in freezer and walk-in
refrigerator. Once this equipment has been installed, evening meals
will be prepared on site. There is an education program structured like
public schools and it is well equipped with adequate supplies. Staff
members reported that it was difficult to make a good presentation to
all Grand Jury members as the group was too large to manage in
secured area. Approximately eight to ten percent of the residents are
repeat offenders. This facility currently houses twenty- two occupants.
Under extreme conditions this capacity has the ability to house
approximately thirty youth. Paint is peeling off on some of the floors.
Recreational equipment, specifically, basketball hoops, are not secured
in the yard area which may be of some concern.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
There are concerns relating to the security of the youth from drive- by
harassment and/ or potential drive- by shootings from the street area
directly behind the exercise yard. The shortage of line staff adds to
the problem of supervisors and their ability to perform their duties.
47
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Appearance and presentation are important and the peeling of the paint
is unsightly. It is recommended that the floor be repainted and that
adequate fire fighting equipment be installed in the kitchen to meet
guidelines set by the State and County. It is also recommended that the
2005- 2006 Grand Jury visit to this facility be confined to the
committee members involved ( Public Safety Committee), plus the
Grand Jury Foreperson. The Grand Jury recommends the staffing for
the Juvenile Hall be brought up to State standards.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Director of Probation
48
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Orland Police Department
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the department and
discuss possible problems with new budgetary constraints and their
ability to serve the public effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members interviewed with the Orland Police Chief on
November 19th, 2004 and found one major issue concerning the
present quarters for the department.
III. FINDINGS:
There are many new housing tracts currently under development
within the community. The addition of approximately one- thousand
new homes will expand the Orland Police Departments realm of
responsibilities significantly.
The Orland Police Department has been granted thirty- thousand
dollars for a feasibility study for additional space. The Orland Police
Department and Willows Police Department both agree that shared
communication is needed. The 9- 1- 1 rollover costs are approximately
forty- five thousand dollars annually to the jail, sixty thousand dollars
to the Sheriff’s Department and three thousand one- hundred dollars
monthly for booking fees. The department has three new tazer guns at
a cost of one thousand nine- hundred seventy- seven dollars each; tazer
guns are shared by nine officers. Volunteers in the Police Service
program provide services to the residence of the community while the
home owners are out of town. They also search for missing children
and direct traffic at major accidents when necessary. This is an
excellent program and permits sworn officers time to fulfill other,
more serious, community needs. At the time of this interview, the
Chief’s position was held on an “ acting” basis. It has since become a
permanent position. The department has four marked vehicles and
one unmarked vehicle.
49
The department has a good working relationship with the Willows
Police Department, the California Highway Patrol and drug agencies.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Currently, booking a person into the Glenn County Jail requires
officers spend one hour traveling time for simple charges such as
shoplifting. It takes three to four hours for a D. U. I. ( Driving Under
Influence). Lack of officers on patrol, during these booking/ traveling
times, poses significant safety issues to the public. The present
quarters are insufficient and have no “ holding area”. This hinders the
departments ability to provide necessary services.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Plans for future developmental growth must include looking into the
feasibility of relocation to larger quarters. Suggestions might include
looking into the now, unoccupied, Sheriff’s Substation located at 821
South Street as a stop- gap or permanent location.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Orland Police Chief
Orland City Council
Board of Supervisors
Glenn County Sheriff
50
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Willows Police Department
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate current working conditions within the Willows Police
Department and discuss possible problems with budgetary constraints
and their ability to serve the public effectively.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jury members interviewed the Willows Police Department on
November 12th, 2004, and found a major issue concerning future
growth and development within the community and their ability to
provide necessary services with those currently working within the
department.
III. FINDINGS:
The department is currently in the same building with the Willows
Public Library and Willows City Hall functions. The 9- 1- 1 rollover
number and department number operate five days per week during
normal business hours. After hours, the Sheriff’s Department handles
911 calls.
There is one- thousand three- hundred square feet of space for eleven
sworn officers. There are three members of the office staff. The
department and the city are currently paying fees to the county. These
fees are increasing administration costs.
The department has a quote of three- hundred- nine thousand dollars
dated 2002 to remodel the present quarters giving them a total of two-thousand
nine- hundred square feet. This is provided the Public
Library relocates altogether. Another option is to use the property
directly behind their present quarters. However, this might pose a
traffic hazard with growth and personnel expansion. Currently, the
department will need three more sworn officers within the next three
to five years because of growth within the community.
There are four patrol vehicles plus the Chief’s vehicle and one
unmarked vehicle. No vehicles are taken home with the exception of
the Chief’s.
51
There are no volunteer programs. However, there is a community
service program. This community service program, consisting of two
non- sworn members who have had police schooling and training, are
on call and are paid for their services.
The Chief has been with the department six years. The department
mails out a citizen’s survey every Friday by randomly choosing ten
calls received each week. These citizens are asked 7 questions
relating to department and officer performance. The responses are
rated on a scale from one to five, with one being poor and five being
excellent.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Police Department needs more room for current employees. In
addition, they would need six to seven more employees if they were to
handle their own calls twenty- four hours, seven days per week. This
would further increase the need for expanded quarters.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The department must plan to move or build larger quarters, as the
department increases in personnel, to cover necessary services to a
growing community.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
City Council
Willows Chief of Police
52
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Public Facilities Projects
I. PURPOSE:
To assess the progress of improvements to certain public facilities.
II. BACKGROUND:
Several County facilities need major repairs and upgrades. The
County has deferred maintenance on these facilities and has been
unable to upgrade them due to budget shortfalls and lack of alternative
funding sources. Prop. 40 allocated 1.2 million dollars to the County.
The County dispersed $ 220,000 to each City and will use the
remainder on County facilities.
III. FINDINGS:
On June 1, 2004, with the recommendation of the County Facilities
Planning Committee, a list of Prop. 40 Grant funded projects, with
cost estimates, were proposed and approved by the Board of
Supervisors. These projects included:
1. Bayliss Library - Renovation and restoration for an estimated
$ 195,000.
2. Orland Memorial Hall and Park - Improve the method of
ingress/ egress to meet ADA requirements, install exit and
emergency lighting, and enlarge / remodel restrooms with new
ADA compliant facilities and fixtures for an estimated $ 85,000.
3. Willows Memorial Hall and Park - Installation of an ADA
compliant drinking fountain for an estimated $ 5,000.
4. Hamilton City Park - Replace and/ or install ADA compliant
sidewalks, construct a 50 foot diameter gazebo, run all
underground electric, install new lighting, upgrade the area and
replace the basketball court to prevent loose balls from escaping
into the street for an estimated $ 90,000.
5. Ord Bend Park and Boat Ramp - upgrade the parking lot and
walkway surfaces around the rest room for ADA compliance,
add additional lighting, upgrade the irrigation system to
improve
53
efficiency and improve the boat ramp area for an estimated cost
of $ 88,000.
The Bayliss Library project is the first priority and construction is
scheduled to start in the summer of 2005. After the Bayliss Library
project, the others will be developed and constructed.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Planning Department is doing an excellent job moving forward
on the Bayliss project and developing the other projects. These
repairs and upgrades are important. Deferred maintenance leads to
higher costs in the future.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Glenn Planning continues the development of these County facilities
projects and tries to access additional funds, with the Prop. 40 Grant
Funds. Glenn Planning provides the 2005- 2006 Glenn County Grand
Jury with an update and status report on these projects.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency
54
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Butte City Boat Ramp
I. PURPOSE:
To continue monitoring and assess the progress at the boat ramp.
II. BACKROUND:
The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommended installation of security
lighting and a camera at the boat ramp. The project was put on hold
because silting problems are occurring in the area and the County has
been delayed in getting the necessary permits to dredge.
III. FINDINGS:
If the County cannot get a permit and dredge the site the ramp will not
be used. Installation of the lights and camera, at this time, would be a
waste of money.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The County should pursue the dredging permit or find an alternative
site for access in that area.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
When the present site is dredged or an alternative site is developed the
County should proceed with the installation of lighting and a security
camera.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency
55
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Fleet Management
I. PURPOSE:
To review the Glenn County Fleet Management Policy.
II. BACKROUND:
Fleet Management is a Division of the Public Works Department. The
county makes transportation available to the various county
departments through the operation of a Fleet Management Division.
They purchase, maintain and operate all vehicles to reduce the cost of
transportation to the county. Costs of the Fleet Management Division
are received from the user departments.
III. FINDINGS:
Fleet Management is responsible for all fleet vehicle purchases and
cannot increase the size of the fleet without approval of the Board of
Supervisors. Vehicles are purchased either from the California State
List of bids, or from vendors, whichever is lower priced. Vehicles are
only replaced when they meet the replacement criteria. Vehicle
outfitting is done in house with the exception of radio installations
which is contracted out to vendors. Departments can purchase cell
phones for their supervisors, which are the Nextel model with Walki-
Talkie features thus reducing call time expenses. Vehicles are
disposed of at vehicle auctions after being declared surplus by the
Board of Supervisors with the funds going into the Fleet Management
Fund. Fuel is purchased on an annual bid and is dispensed using a
card lock system. A new vehicle car wash rack is under construction.
The water is recycled to meet the new National Pollution Discharge
requirement. County tools and equipment are not loaned out to
individuals. The County is mandated to convert diesel vehicles to
cleaner burning, with less emissions.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Fleet Management Division adheres to the policies set forth in the
Glenn County Administrative Manual Title Fourteen.
56
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Diesel vehicles should be retrofitted to comply with all State and
Federal Clean Air Standards.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Planning and Public Works Agencies
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Glenn County Airports
I. PURPOSE:
To review the current operations of the Glenn County Airports.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Airports have minimal security. Funds have been
allocated for partial fencing of the Orland Airport. Grants were also
applied for funding at the Willows Airport for security.
III. FINDINGS:
Federal Aviation Administration has allocated thirty thousand dollars
for fencing and the State will provide a matching five percent of that
amount for the Orland Airport. The grants for fencing at the Orland
Airport will not cover the cost of labor and materials to fence the
entire airport. Installation of the perimeter fencing will be done by
county crews as work load permits. Fence construction will start on
the East Side, along the airport side of the industrial park after the
environmental clearances are completed. The installation will
continue until the funds are exhausted. At the Orland Airport the
county building is currently vacant. The Public Works Department
perceives that security is a low risk concern due to the many available
Agricultural air strips in the county. Fuel is provided at both airports
using a card lock system. One public works maintenance worker is
assigned to split his duties between both airports. FAA wants an
updated master plan for the Willows Airport before it will allocate any
funding. The existing master plan is twenty years old.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The consolidation of both airports into one new airport could be an
advantage to Glenn County. The existing building could be rented out
for non airport uses at market values. The City of Willows could then
expand to the West Side of Interstate 5.
65
V. RECOMMENDATION:
A master plan for the airports should be drafted and a feasibility study
should be done to determine if a new airport complex with a ten
thousand foot airstrip should be considered. The location could be
midway between Orland and Willows adjacent to the I- 5 Highway.
The larger airport could accommodate larger aircraft and convenient
access to the I- 5 Highway. An industrial site could be incorporated in
the plan. An updated master plan for the Willows Airport must be
done. Fence construction should continue at the Orland Airport as
planned.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Planning and Public Works Agencies
Board of Supervisors
66
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
North Willows Storm Drainage
I. PURPOSE:
Investigate the Glenn County storm drainage system North of the City
of Willows.
II. BACKROUND:
Flooding has occurred North of the City of Willows in the Glenn
County service area.
III. FINDINGS:
The Public Works opinion is that the drainage system is adequate, and
the pumps can handle the additional water runoff.
If a developer proposes building residential housing North of Green
Street, it should be noted that the property is now in the county. A
solution has been suggested to construct a swale ( holding pond)
adjacent to the exiting drainage canal. An additional swale could be
constructed on other property in the event more temporary storage is
needed. This area is in the North Willows Storm Drain Maintenance
District. Some flooding has occurred because trash has blocked the
inlets to the system.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The North Willows Storm Drain Maintenance District has knowledge
of the flooding problems and are evaluating proposed additional needs
for necessary drainage requirements for the future.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
1. If development is proposed for the property in this flood prone area
the contractor should bear all costs to upgrade the drainage system
and all impact fees for water, sewer, streets and curbs with gutters.
2. Initiate a free dump day at the land fill or free pickup of trash,
possibly twice a year. This may eliminate some of the illegal dumping
which is done in remote areas, along the roads and drainage ditches.
67
Hazardous waste and large appliances could also be collected. This
may also reduce some of the code violations at private residential
properties.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
City of Willows
Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency
Board of Supervisors
68
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Orland Public Works and Infrastructure
I. PURPOSE:
To interview the City of Orland’s City Manager and the Director of
Public Works to review the city’s infrastructure of the Public Works
Department, water, sewer, streets and storm drains.
II. BACKROUND:
Can the City of Orland’s infrastructure accommodate future growth?
III. FINDINGS:
The Public Works Department has nine full- time and two part time
employees and a new director has been promoted from within the
department. The part- time employees are very reliable and do a good
job for the city. The department is funded from fees collected from
water and sewer with some collected from gas taxes and the General
Fund. Engineering is contracted with Anderson & Rolls of Chico.
Services are billed on an hourly basis as needed. New developers pay
for installation of services in new subdivisions.
According to the City Manager, the sewer system is currently
operating at fifty percent capacity. The total capacity is for twelve
thousand people. A PRIMARY raw sewage system is currently being
used and they do not anticipate switching to a secondary sewage plant
because of the vast amount of land available for future expansion of
the current POND systems. “ BUGS” are purchased from Ennix
Corporation and they are doing an excellent job keeping the ponds up
to standards.
The drain system for rain run off is adequate since Orland is built on a
virtual gravel bed. Occasionally, during heavy rains, the system does
not drain as fast as necessary because of the capacity of the existing
pipes. This is currently being corrected with new pipes. All water run
off flows to Lely Aquatic Park.
Additional lands currently not being used for new ponds will more
than satisfy any future growth and development needs for Orland.
However, piping to new ponds at the Orland Airport, as approved by a
City/ County agreement, was never completed.
69
The city has eight water wells and they are adding a new water
storage tank with a capacity of three quarters of a million gallons of
water. The existing one has a capacity of eighty thousand gallons.
There are city developer fees imposed on new developments which
can be used for infrastructure improvements. There are no County
Developer fees at this time. The developer pays the fees during the
permit process.
Curbs, sidewalks, and gutters are required for all new homes.
There is a sewer line now in place under the freeway to service the
West side.
The new subdivision located North of the arch has been annexed into
the city.
Property must be annexed into the city to obtain city services.
Increased costs due to Workman’s Compensation and medical benefits
are slowly siphoning money from current funds. This ultimately will
result in a loss in the quality of services.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Orland infrastructure is adequate with upgrades for additional
growth. However, funding sources are being diverted and additional
funds are necessary to maintain level of services.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Review fees for services and adjust, if necessary, to upgrade
infrastructure and maintain quality of services.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
City of Orland
70
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Willows Public Works and Infrastructure
I. PURPOSE:
To interview the City Manager of Willows and the Director of Public
Works to review the city’s infrastructure of the Public Works
Department, water, sewer, streets and storm drains.
II. BACKROUND:
Can the City of Willows infrastructure accommodate future growth?
III. FINDINGS:
The Public Works Department has twelve full- time positions.
The city maintains four parks, three city and one for the railroad.
The city only supplies water to three sites with the majority of water
supplied by the California Water Service Company.
Forty- two new homes are to be built within the Willows city limits
and an additional forty- three homes are proposed to be built adjacent
to the city. All impact fee’s will be paid by the developer and are
bonded in case the project is not completed. Two to three percent
growth for the city is projected over twenty years, with a population
of six thousand two hundred to ten thousand. The sewage system will
be updated with an eight million dollar grant. It will expand to serve a
ten thousand population. The water recycling project is funded by
grant funds. The city has hired two community service/ code officers
and are slowly improving their ability to respond to code violations.
The Fire Department handles the weed abatement program.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Willows infrastructure is adequate with upgrades for additional
growth.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
None
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
None
71
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Capay Joint Union Elementary School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Capay Joint Union
Elementary School’s representatives on February 4th, 2005, to witness
a fire drill.
III. FINDINGS:
The school consists of grades K through 8 with student enrollment
being approximately one- hundred twenty five to one- hundred thirty-five
students. They currently hold one fire drill per month.
The fire drill began at 11: 00 am and ended at 11: 04 am. Students
walked out of the classrooms single file to designated areas located
approximately one- hundred yards from buildings. Each teacher is
responsible for his/ her class. If, after taking roll call, all students are
present a large green card, approximately twenty by twenty inches,
was held high overhead by the teacher. If someone is missing a large
red card is held up. During this drill one student was missing. His
name was called out and he was located with another class where he
was on assignment at the time of the drill.
The secretary checks all restrooms on her way out and is responsible
for the card display. Drill procedures are posted in all classrooms.
At this time there are no “ Intruder Drills” taking place. It has been
discussed but no decision has been made as to when they should start.
This fire drill was carried out in a very orderly fashion.
The custodian was very helpful in explaining how the drill works and
in sounding the ( ear piercing) alarm.
The office secretary was very forthcoming with information. The
Superintendent/ Principal was on medical leave. By the nature of the
conversation they would have appreciated more members of the
Grand Jury being present.
72
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The school needs to holding drills for intruder- on- campus and finalize
drill procedures. The school also needs to install door locks, blinds
for windows, and a notification system for such procedures to account
for all students in classrooms. The school is still in the process of
applying for Financial Hardship Modernization funds to pay the
$ 7,162.31 needed for the door locks.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Initiate intruder- on- campus drills and procedures without further
delay. Install locking devices which may be locked from the inside of
the classroom and put blinds on the windows. Make sure drills are
practiced frequently and that a notification system which insures all
students are accounted for in the classrooms during the drill is in
adopted as part of the procedures for intruder alerts.
Complete application for Financial Hardship Modernization Funds
from the Office of Public School Construction. If application is not
successful, school should immediately pursue other sources to fund
door locks.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Capay Joint Union Elementary School
73
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
C. K. Price School
I. PURPOSE:
To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and
intruder on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jurors met with the Vice Principal of C. K. Price School on
January 13th, 2005 at 1: 35pm.
III. FINDINGS:
Instructional booklets regarding school procedures are given to
substitute teachers upon their arrival day of assignment. The Vice
Principal and Grand Jurors in attendance both found it difficult to
locate fire drill and intruder drill procedures in this booklet.
It was noted that only a map, without instructions, was displayed on
the walls in the classroom.
The fire department was notified of the pending fire drill scheduled
that day. The alarm was sounded. As Grand Jurors walked the
grounds to observe children and teachers it was noted that no lines
were formed as children exited the classrooms. Some children were
running to other children from other rooms. However, once they
were out on the field behind the school they did form lines and
teachers took roll call.
Most rooms were checked and found to be locked. The bell rang
signaling all was safe and the children returned to class in a semi-orderly
fashion.
It was noted that some rooms do not lock from the inside for intruder
protection.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Emergency procedures need to be located at the front of substitute
teacher manuals for easier access and review.
74
Remaining classrooms not equipped with inside door locks for
intruder protection need attention. Children running from classrooms
is cause for concern.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Move emergency procedures to the front of the substitute instructional
manual. Install locks on the inside of the doors, currently without
such devices, for intruder prevention. As an alternative, use the same
“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate
Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out
of the classroom while the door remains locked at all times. If an
ALERT is activated, this devise is pulled out from the inside, and the
door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members
from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping
them out of harms way.
School Administrators and Teachers should review drills procedures
and insure that students are instructed not to run during drills.
Everyone should go to his or her assigned areas quickly, quietly and
orderly, but not running.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
C. K. Price School
75
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Elk Creek School
I. PURPOSE:
To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and
intruder on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jurors attended a presentation and witnessed a fire drill at Elk
Creek School on February 18th, 2005.
III. FINDINGS:
The fire drill went off smoothly and in an orderly fashion. Teachers
and students seem well prepared for this type of emergency.
The school is funded with 10% Federal and 90% State funds.
Indian funds are approximately $ 7,000.00 per year. There are
approximately 130 children in the district. Only 2 classroom doors
lock from the inside. All others lock from the outside with the
exception of room number 2.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Because only two of the classrooms lock from the inside there are
serious concerns for the safety of teachers having to step outside the
classroom to lock doors in the event of an intruder on campus.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Install locks on the inside of the three remaining doors or use the same
“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate
Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out
of the classrooms while the door remains locked at all times. If an
ALERT is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and the
door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members
from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping
them out of harms way.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Elk Creek School
76
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Fairview School
I. PURPOSE:
To review current procedures regarding emergency evacuations and
intruder on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Grand Jurors attended and witnessed a fire drill/ evacuation on
October 19th, 2004 and met with the principal on January 10th, 2005 to
discuss possible areas of concern pertaining to these issues.
III. FINDINGS:
The emergency evacuation on October 19th, 2004 was executed
without incident and the subsequent meeting with the new principal
was both informative and interesting. Fairview School’s new
principal is genuinely concerned for the safety of the children and has
implemented a new and improved program outlining emergency
procedures. This program will be presented to the Site Council for
approval.
These new procedures, along with several drills will, undoubtedly,
help make Fairview School one of the best prepared schools in the
district.
Three rooms still need locking devices from the inside, for intruder
prevention, keeping faculty members from having to step outside the
classroom to lock the door placing them in harms way.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Grand Jurors have concluded that Fairview School’s proposed
emergency program is excellent.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Install locks on the inside of the three remaining doors or use the same
“ foam rubber” device currently being used by Willows Intermediate
Schools. It is manufactured and designed to allow access in and out
of the classrooms while the door remains locked at all times.
77
If an ALERT is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and
the door automatically locks shut. This will prevent faculty members
from having to step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping
them out of harms way.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Fairview School
78
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Hamilton Union School District
I. PURPOSE: To follow up on prior Grand Jury recommendations and
investigate the status of installation of hardware for door locking
device.
II. BACKROUND: The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury recommended the
schools install door locks that can be locked from the inside. The
School District responded on August 10th, 2004 and stated,
“ Retrofitting all doors that fall into this category with locking devices
which are approved by the State Fire Marshall will cost the District
approximately $ 20,000. This expense is not reflected in the District’s
current budget. The District will pursue obtaining a matching funds
JPA Safety Grant. If the District is successful in obtaining a grant,
$ 10,000 will be applied toward retrofitting during the school year
2005- 2006. If succeeding grant applications are forthcoming, an
additional and final $ 10,000 will complete the project during the
school year 2006- 2007. If the District is not successful in obtaining
JPA grant funding, it will be necessary to phase in the retrofitting over
a longer period.”
III. FINDINGS: The District has installed the locks on the multipurpose
rooms. However, installation on the classrooms is very expensive.
The JPA Grant is still available but the District cannot include the
matching funds in their current budget, at this time, because of the
uncertainty of possible State impact on school financing.
IV. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of teachers and students is important
& proper door locks would help ensure their safety.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The District should continue its efforts to fund this project and provide
matching funds for the JPA Door Lock Safety Grant.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Hamilton Union School District
79
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Lake School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the school principal
and determined their was one major issue that needed attention.
III. FINDINGS:
1. Practices for intruder drills include a lock down of the entire
campus.
2. All rooms locked from either the inside or the outside.
3. Procedures for all drills are posted in all classrooms.
4. The drill observed was carried out in an orderly manner.
5. All procedures were supervised and checked by the principal.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Doors not equipped with inside locking mechanisms do not provide
safety for teachers in the event of an intruder on campus. Teachers
must step outside these rooms to lock the door putting them in harms
way.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Install locks on the inside of all doors or use the same “ foam rubber”
device currently being used by Willow Intermediate Schools. It is
manufactured and designed to allow access in and out of the
classrooms while the door remains locked at all times. If an ALERT
is activated, this device is pulled out from the inside, and the door
automatically locks shut. This will prevent teachers from having to
step outside the classroom to lock the door keeping them out of harms
way.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Lake School
80
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Murdock Elementary School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the Vice Principal
who directed them to the principal on January 11th, 2005 at
approximately 9: 20am. A folder was offered to the Grand Jury listing
the procedures used for intruder drills along with fire and earthquake
drills.
III. FINDINGS:
Murdock Elementary School alternates between inside drills and
outside drills, having one drill per month. Code Blue is a practice
drill. Code Red is the real thing. Grand Jurors walked around with
the principal as she checked all doors to see if they were locked. She
noted any procedures which were not followed, Finding only one; a
light which had been left on. All lights are to be turned off, curtains
pulled and rubber blocks are removed from the doors securing them
from the inside. A sign with a CIRCLE in the window means all
children are present. A sign with a SQUARE in the window means a
student is not in the classroom. The students name is written on the
SQUARE. If students are out of the classroom or in the restroom they
are instructed to put their feet up in the stall. During outside drills all
students are to drop where they are and lay flat like stones. The
principal and vice- principal divided the campus to check rooms. The
total drill time took eight minutes. When all was clear an
announcement was made over the loud speaker that the code blue was
all clear. There is a teacher handbook in each room for substitute
teachers to review. With repeated practices students now know what
they must do in cases of such alerts. The drill went smoothly and the
principal was very informative and pleasant.
81
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Murdock Elementary seems well prepared for emergency procedures.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Continue practicing drills as scheduled.
Recommend a secondary ( backup) location for activating the alert
system, such as the teacher’s lounge.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Murdock Elementary School
82
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Plaza School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Plaza School’s principal
and observed a fire drill.
III. FINDINGS:
1. When the alarm was sounded all students and teachers moved
quickly and quietly to their assigned locations on the field.
2. All teachers and aids had their roll sheets and called roll to
insure one- hundred percent participation.
3. No students or employees remained in the buildings.
4. Upon inspection of the alarm system the annual alarm
inspection report for 2004 was not in place in the alarm box.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The fire drill was properly executed in a timely and efficient manner.
The equipment appeared to be in good working order, but the last
inspection report was not in the alarm box.
Construction was proceeding on new classrooms and other buildings.
All new construction meets latest state codes for door locks and other
hardware.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
After annual equipment inspections school staff should insure that
inspectors provide reports and that they are placed in the alarm boxes.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Plaza School
83
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Princeton Elementary School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Two Glenn County Grand Jury members met with Plaza School
representatives on February 24th, 2005 at approximately 10: 43 to
observed a Fire Drill.
III. FINDINGS:
Approximately 60% of the children are Spanish speaking. There are
special teachers assigned to these children.
Overall the school is well taken care of and seems up on all the latest
procedures.
FIRE DRILL:
1. When the alarm was sounded all students and teachers walked
or ran to their assigned locations on the playground.
2. Teachers checked their respective lists of names to see if all
children were present.
3. The school principal checked the bathrooms.
4. The superintendent checks with all teachers to make sure they
are present.
5. The superintendent gives the thumbs up to signal the end of the
fire drill. The alarm sounds until this sign is given.
6. The school bell rings as the signal for all students and teachers
to return to their classrooms.
One teacher was asked what she would do if one of her students was
missing during the drill. Her reply was that she would probably ask
another teacher to watch her class while she went looking for the
missing student.
84
At the beginning of the year all teachers and students review the rules
for emergency evacuations and they include a bus evacuation once per
year. All teachers attend training for lock down drills which are also
scheduled once per year. Some fire drills are unannounced.
Not all classrooms have telephones but teachers have cell phones and
classrooms have intercoms.
Classroom doors do not lock from the inside. However, the
installation of locks is in progress and has been approved since
January, 2005 with grant funding. “ North State Deferred Maintenance
Funds.”
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The Fire Drill was properly executed in a timely and efficient manner.
The equipment appeared to be in good working order and evacuation
was well executed.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends fine tuning and reviewing the
written for the procedures for locating missing students during
emergency drills as one teacher seemed unsure of what to do in such a
case.
School Administrators and Teachers should review drills procedures
and insure that students are instructed not to run during drills.
Everyone should go to his or her assigned areas quickly, quietly and
orderly, but not running.
Make sure locks, now being installed, lock from the inside of the
classroom permitting the teacher to lock the doors without having to
step outside the classroom to accomplish this task which may put
them in harms way.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Princeton Elementary School
85
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Final Report
Willows Intermediate School
I. PURPOSE:
To investigate school safety drills, including fire drills and/ or intruder
on campus drills.
II. BACKROUND:
Glenn County Grand Jury members interviewed the school principal,
and Vice Principal on January 11th, 2005 at approximately 1: 15.
III. FINDINGS: There are approximately five- hundred students. One
fire drill and one intruder drill are held each month with two disaster
drills being held each school year. A CODE BLUE was announced at
1: 15 and one member of the Grand Jury attended one classroom and
found the substitute teacher and all students were under desks.
Another Grand Juror attended the Nurses office and found four
students, one mother, and two members of the office staff secure. A
third Grand Juror walked around campus with the Vice Principal and
found all areas secured. All doors were secured by interior fitted door
lock bands. All exterior doors were fitted with a bar type lock as well.
All windows were either darkened and/ or shades were fitted for cover.
This drill took approximately twelve minutes. The school also has a
new telephone communication system.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
There is only one location to activate emergency procedures. Two
locations might be beneficial in cases where one area is subject to an
intruder and staff may not be permitted to sound the alarm from that
location.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Install a secondary location to activate emergency procedures other
than the office location. Continue practicing drills as scheduled.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED:
Willows Intermediate School
86
2004- 2005
GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY
EVALUATION OF
RESPONSES
To
2003- 2004
Grand Jury Final Report
June 30th, 2005
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Board of Supervisors / Golden State Risk
Management Authority / City of Orland, All Glenn County School Districts
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 02
RECOMMENDATION: That GSRMA provide training to the member
agencies on how to deal with claims and claimants and the need for a
friendly and informative attitude; keeping in mind that members are public
agencies and public servants. The GSRMA should strongly urge members to
attend. A brochure should be provided to all members outlining the positive
aspect of good public relations and how to help claimants fill out claims and
the procedure for filing them. A claimant has a right to file a claim in a
timely manner without difficulty and should be given all the help needed,
with instructions, on where to file by trained agency personnel.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 09/ 21/ 04
The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response from Golden Risk
Management Authority, dated July 14, 2004 per attachment A which states:
Dear Judge Saint Evens:
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the following is Golden State Risk
Management Authority’s ( hereinafter GSRMA) response to the Glenn
County Grand Jury’s 2003/ 2004 Final Report. Specifically, pages 1 and 2
covering GSRMA.
GSRMA partially disagrees with the findings as stated on pate 1 of this
report. Our disagreements are as follows:
A. Member contributions are paid directly to the GSRMA to cover the
pooled layer and to purchase reinsurance, or excess insurance, or both,
depending on the specific program.
87
Attached you will find copies of GSRMA’s 2003/ 2004 Memorandums of
Coverage. These documents provide a clearer picture of how each program
is structured.
B. Per Government Tort Claims Act 910.4, GSRMA has provided all of its
Member Agencies with a claim form template. This document was adopted
by each Member Agency and is available to the public should they desire to
file a claim against said Public Agency. In addition, GSRMA has said claim
form template is available on its website, www. gsrma. org for any Member
Agency to download as needed.
In regards to said claim form, it is constructed as recommended by the
Government Claims Tort Act. It is set up in an easy to read format that
could be completed by anyone having a basic understanding of the English
language. It is not required by the Government Claims Tort Act that a Public
Agency have said form in any foreign language.
Enclosed you will find a copy of said template. As you can read, this
document clearly spells out what information is needed to file a claim
against any Public Agency.
GSRMA takes exception to the Grand Jury’s findings that GSRMA should
train its membership on how to train the public to sue at Public Agency.
GSRMA has clearly demonstrated it does provide service to its membership
in the steps that are necessary should the public wish to file a claim against
said Public Agency.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
88
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County Assessor, Department of Finance
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 04
RECOMMENDATION: There needs to be clarification of exactly what
A87 is and if its use is mandatory for counties in determining how costs are
allocated for each department. All county departments should be provided
this information.
RESPONSE: Letter dated August 6, 2004 from the Department of Finance.
A presentation was given at the Board of Supervisors meeting on March 18th,
2003, explaining the A- 87 plan. Additionally, the plan was further presented
at the management Council Meeting on April 8, 2003. These meetings were
properly noticed and all interested county departments were invited. A copy
of the Board report and Agenda Item Transmittal of that date will be re-issued
to all current county department heads.
The A- 87 plan is the only allowable cost allocation methodology for the
State of California and the Federal government. As such, its use is
mandatory in determining costs of each department.
The Finance Director concurred that the Board of Supervisors had the
ultimate authority to raise or lower each Department’s budget. As such,
taking A- 87 costs from each Department’s budget does not necessarily
reduce the Department’s level of funding. If appropriate, the Board can
simply raise a Department’s budget to offset the A- 87 changes.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
89
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Human Resource Agency ( HRA)
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 05
RECOMMENDATION: HRA needs to publicize and promote a more
positive image for their programs in order to have the services utilized by a
broader range of people; i. e., employers.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 19/ 04
The HRA fully concurs with this and has already initiated an
outreach/ marketing program which targets/ emphasizes employer programs
and services.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
90
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Child Welfare Re- Design of Glenn County Foster
Care
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 18
RECOMMENDATION: The Grand Jury needs to actively follow this
process. ( Child Welfare Redesign). A member of the Grand Jury should
attend the CICC meetings, to be aware of how the redesign proceeds. The
CICC agendas should be sent to the Grand Jury on an ongoing basis and
should be given a copy of the final Redesign Plan, and an overview
presentation by an HRA management team.
RESPONSE: The HRA concurs with this recommendation and appreciates
the Grand Jury’s interest in this important effort to improve mandated
services to children and families. A copy of the monthly CICC meeting
notices and proposed agendas will be forwarded to the Grand Jury ( P. O. Box
1023) beginning in September 2004. The Grand Jury will also be given a
copy of the final Redesign Plan ( when completed) and provided with an
overview presentation of the plan by the HRA management team if
requested by the 04/ 05 Grand Jury. The final Redesign Plan was received by
the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury in February of 2005.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
91
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn Medical Center Administration / Glenn
County Board of Supervisors
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 20
RECOMMENDATION: The Grand Jury should review quarterly progress
reports on the process of separation from Enloe Medical Center. Grand Jury
members should also attend foundation meetings and meet with the
administrator on a quarterly basis. The administration should provide
progress reports to the Grand Jury.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 07/ 19/ 2004
In accordance with reporting requirement, please find Glenn Medical
Center’s responses to the 2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report.
Representatives from Bill Casey and Associates and Glenn Medical Center
Administration meet with the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis with
updates regarding the facility. Minutes of these quarterly updates are
available for the Grand Jury. Should the Grand Jury wish to meet separately
with Bill Casey and Associates and the hospital administration, a quarterly
meeting could be scheduled to discuss the Enloe separation issue. Glenn
Medical Center would be happy to host this meeting following direction
from the Grand Jury. With respect to the newly formed Glenn Medical
Center Foundation, I have asked the Foundation Board to contact the Grand
Jury to advise as to the Foundation’s meeting schedule. I am sure the
Foundation Board would welcome attendance by Grand Jury members to
hear the progress and plans of the Foundation. The Hospital Administrator
would also attend this meeting. Mr. Vern Roberts, Foundation Board
Member, will contact Mr. Calonico to share the Foundation’s meeting
schedule.
Glenn Medical Center is committed to providing quality health care services
throughout the County and looks forward to working with the Grand Jury.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
92
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: C. K. Price School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE:
C. K. Price will be refitted with anti- intruder locks during the “ 04/ 05” school
year. The Team Concept will be continued for the “ 04/ 05” school year. This
program became effective once permanent employees were on the job and
retraining had taken place. The program will be monitored for effectiveness.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
93
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Capay Joint Union Elementary School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 19/ 04
The school has received a quote of $ 7162.31 from Johnny’s Lock and Safe.
This does not include keying and master keying of all locks. Also, the
District is in the process of applying for Financial Hardship Modernization
money. If approved, these state funds could be used to cover the cost of
installing the locks.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
94
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County Board of Supervisors
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: The Board concurs with the recommendations of the Grand
Jury, however, the Board has no jurisdiction over the school districts.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
95
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Glenn County School Board, Willows Unified
School Board, Willows High School, Willows Intermediate School, Willows
Elementary School, Office Of Education
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE:
It is always a pleasure to work with the members of the Grand Jury. This
year the focus for the education community was to review progress of the
2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommendation for intruder prevention and other
school operations and to determine the authority of the Superintendent.
Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have
a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and the individual school districts
have plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law
enforcement and the office of emergency services to talk about potential
problems and their solutions.
Your committee did a thorough job of reviewing the Superintendent’s
authority. AB 2756 was just passed which extended the AB 1200 budget
oversight for districts. We are currently determining what this will entail.
Under recommendation for the 2004 year you encouraged schools to use the
grant writer and apply for grants. With tight budgets I would heartily
endorse looking for extra grant funding. Unfortunately our county grants
writer is currently working on facilities and will not be available until we
complete the funding cycle for building projects. When those are completed
we will return to our grantsmanship. Thank you for your work and
dedication to the children of Glenn County.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
96
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Hamilton Elementary School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated July 28, 2004
The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury report recommended that locks were to be
installed on all doors to enable personnel to lock the doors from the inside.
In May, 2004, at considerable expense our district installed an “ inside
locking system” on all doors in all schools in our district. All exterior doors
are now compliant not only with the Grand Jury recommendations but also
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the State Fire Marshall.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
97
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Hamilton Union School District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated August 10, 2004
Regarding the third recommendation: Retrofitting all doors that fall into this
category with locking devises which are approved by the State Fire Marshall
will cost the District approximately $ 20,000.00. This expense is not
reflected in the District’s current budget. The District will pursue obtaining
a matching funds JPA Safety Grant. If the District is successful in obtaining
a grant, $ 10,000.00 will be applied toward retrofitting during the school year
2005- 2006. If succeeding grant applications are forthcoming, an additional
and final $ 10,000.00 will complete the project during the school year 2006-
2007. If the District is not successful in obtaining JPA grant funding, it will
be necessary to phase in the retrofitting over a longer period.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
98
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Lake School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 07/ 23/ 04
I discussed the findings with our Board of Trustees and wish to report on the
things we will be doing this year to address their findings:
We will check to see that all door hardware meets the latest state codes.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
99
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Mill Street School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: The team concept for custodial work was developed because
the custodian at one of the schools retired and was not replaced. There was
not a smooth transition to concept due to the necessity of retraining and the
long- term absence of two employees. After permanent employees were
hired and employees adapted to their new work environment, the program
became successful. The team concept will be monitored to be sure the kinks
have been worked out.
Safety money has been budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill
Street School.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
100
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Orland Unified School District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: The team concept is not used for maintenance only cleaning.
The concept is workable but was hamstrung by the long- term absence of two
employees. The program was running smoothly and effectively the last two
months of school.
As part of the modernization of Fairview School, anti- intruder locks were
installed on all classroom doors. Audio- visual curtains have been installed
and can be drawn in the event an intruder is on campus. The high school
already has the anti- intruder locks installed. Safety money has been
budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill Street.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
101
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Plaza School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE: Letter dated 08/ 25/ 04
The Plaza School District is about to begin a construction program that will
replace some of our older portable classrooms and administrative offices. I
anticipate the start of construction in late July and a completion date of about
December of 2004. After the District completes their project the County
Office of Education will begin work an a new 3500 square foot structure on
our campus with a completion date near the end of the 2004- 2005 school
year. Some of the findings expressed in the report will be addressed during
construction.
Door locks - once again, new construction will be up to the latest state codes
and should be adequate for protection of staff and students.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
102
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Princeton Unified School District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE:
The District agrees with this finding. The District will comply with the
requirements outlined in the California Public Contract Code to install the
new locks. However, these requirements may not necessarily require the
District to undertake the competitive bidding process to complete these
project. Please note that prior to the Grand Jury’s issuance of its report, the
District was already in the process of obtaining estimates from appropriate
contractors to replace all classroom door locks at the Elementary School and
the Jr./ Sr. High School.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted.
103
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Stoney Creek Unified School District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 21
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluation of the Team Concept of school
grounds care. All classrooms need inside/ outside door locks for the
protection of our children.
RESPONSE:
Stoney Creek School District, page 21, is actually Elk Creek High and
Elementary School ( K- 6), page 32 of 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Report.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW:
Report on page 21 recommends the re- evaluation of the Team Concept of
school grounds care and that all classrooms need inside/ outside door locks
for the protection of our children.
Report on page 32 states that Elk Creek High School’s and Elementary
School’s kitchens, bathrooms and grounds are very clean and well kept and
that all doors lock from the inside and NO RESPONSE IS REQUIRED.
Therefore, Stoney Creek School District ( Elk Creek) need not respond to
maintenance and door lock issues requested on page 21.
104
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Plaza School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 22
RECOMMENDATION: Fencing the school ground perimeter and provide
control gates. Install locks on doors for intruder prevention.
RESPONSE: Letter dated August 25, 2004
Need for fencing - The area in question has a new classroom being
constructed nearby and heavy equipment will be in and out of the area.
After construction is complete the fencing will be evaluated and replaced as
needed.
Door locks - once again, new construction will be up to the latest state codes
and should be adequate for protection of staff and students.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
105
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School
Board
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 22
RECOMMENDATION: Fencing the school ground perimeter and provide
control gates. Install locks on doors for intruder prevention.
RESPONSE: Letter dated July 20, 2004
Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have
a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and individual school districts have
plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law enforcement and
the office of emergency services to talk about potential problems and their
solutions.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
106
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Lake School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 23
RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors for intruder protection.
RESPONSE: Letter dated July 23, 2004
Door locks - We will check to see that all door hardware meets the latest
state codes.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
107
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School
District
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 23
RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors for intruder protection.
RESPONSE: Letter dated July 20, 2004
Over the years progress has been made in the area of school safety. We have
a countywide disaster preparedness plan, and individual school districts have
plans for a variety of contingencies. We have met with law enforcement and
the office of emergency service to talk about potential problems and their
solutions.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
108
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Mill Street School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 24
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for the
keeping of the grounds and classrooms. Install door locks for intruder
protection. Determine if buildings contain any lead- based paint and remove
lead- based paint.
RESPONSE:
The API test scores at Mill Street are an impressive 726. This score equates
to a rank of five on a 10- point scale compared to all California elementary
schools. Compared to schools with similar demographics, Mill Street ranks
a seven out of a possible ten. A researched based- approach and data- driven
instruction will take the scores even higher. I issued a safety memo to all
Mill Street staff urging them to remove all combustible material from the
vicinity of heating units. A work order has been written regarding an
inspection of outlets in the library floor. A work order has also been
submitted to repair faulty faucets and drinking fountains. Flaking paint has
been removed from the cafeteria walls and the entire building has been
repainted. Anti- intruder locks are scheduled for installation within the next
two years. The team concept for custodial work was developed because the
custodian at one of the schools retired and was not replaced. There was not
a smooth transition to the new concept due to the necessity of retraining and
the long- term absence of two employees. After permanent employees were
hired and employees adapted to their new work environment, the program
became successful. The team concept will be monitored to be sure the kinks
have been worked out.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
109
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Office of Education / Glenn County School
Board
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 24
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for the
keeping of the grounds and classrooms. Install door locks for intruder
protection. Determine if buildings contain any lead- based paint and remove
lead- based paint.
RESPONSE:
As part of the modernization of Fairview School, anti- intruder locks were
installed on all classroom doors. Audio- visual curtains have been installed
and can be drawn in the event an intruder is on campus. The high school
already has the anti- intruder locks installed. Anti- intruder locks are
scheduled for installation within the next two years. Safety money has been
budgeted to install such locks at C. K. Price and Mill Street.
Flaking paint has been removed from the cafeteria walls and the entire
building has been repainted. The Team concept for custodial work was
developed because the custodian at one of the schools retired and was not
replaced. There was not a smooth transition to the new concept due to the
necessity of retraining and the long- term absence of two employees. After
permanent employees were hired and employees adapted to their new work
environment, the program became successful. The team concept will be
monitored to be sure the kinks have been worked out.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
110
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Fairview School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 25
RECOMMENDATION: Re- evaluate the Team Custodial Concept for
grounds and classroom maintenance. It is suggested that the principal apply
for a grant to continue the GATE program.
RESPONSE: The Team concept is not used for maintenance, only cleaning.
The concept is workable but was hamstrung by the long- term absence of two
employees. The program was running smoothly and effectively the last two
months of school. The team concept will continue with the newly hired staff
for the 2004- 2005 school year. The condition of the schools will be closely
monitored for maintenance and cleanliness.
The GATE program was not eliminated. On the contrary, hiring two new
and enthusiastic GATE coordinators has enhanced the program. The “ aging”
computers are Macs that some teachers prefer. Sixty new and reconditioned
IBM compatible computers are replacing the old MACS for the 2004- 2005
school year. Fairview is technically a Program Improvement School despite
the fact that it met overall growth targets each year. One subgroup failed to
meet the target in “ 00- 01” and a different group failed in “ 01- 02”. The
school greatly exceeded their growth targets for the “ 02- 03” school year in
all groups but must remain a PI school until all groups meet the targets two
years in a row. The new principal brought a new level of commitment to
teaching standards and motivated students to do their best. When the scores
come out for the “ 03- 04” school year, I strongly suspect that Fairview will
no longer be a PI school.
A work order to inspect and repair drinking fountains at Fairview School has
been issued.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
111
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows High School
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 26
RECOMMENDATION: The school grounds and classrooms need
cleaning. The kitchen needs a thorough cleaning.
RESPONSE: The cleaning issues in the kitchen and the classrooms have
been addressed with the custodial staff. With the reduction of custodial
time, classrooms are only cleaned every other day. The kitchen is cleaned
every day and has received a thorough cleaning since the Grand Jury Report.
With the assistance of the ASB organization, the grounds are now being
cleaned regularly by the students. Administration is actively addressing
campus beautification with students and staff. “ Be proud of our school.
Keep it clean” is the them we’ve embraced at Willows High School.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
112
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows Superintendent of Schools
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 26
RECOMMENDATION: The school grounds and classrooms need
cleaning. The kitchen needs a thorough cleaning.
RESPONSE: Due to financial constraints, the Willows Unified School
District has been forced to reduce Custodial, Grounds and Maintenance
personnel. I’m certain it is obvious that, with fewer personnel, it has been
necessary that we prioritize our many tasks and complete those jobs that are
most important. Believing it to be appropriate, the District has implemented
and every- other- day classroom cleaning schedule. Specific areas, such as
bathrooms, cafeterias/ kitchens, offices and main hallways are cleaned at the
end of every day, however. Although this schedule is far from ideal, it does
provide for an adequate cleaning of all of our facilities. Strong emphasis is
now placed on the staff and students cleaning up after themselves and, as a
result less custodial time is required. In general, students throughout the
district are being held more responsible for campus beautification and
cleanliness.
2004- 2005 GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSE:
Response accepted
113
2004- 2005 Glenn County Grand Jury
Evaluation of Responses To
2003- 2004 Glenn County Grand Jury Report
DEPARTMENT NAME: Willows Intermediate School / Office of
Education / Glenn County School Board
REPORT NUMBER: # 04- 27
RECOMMENDATION: Install locks on doors to lock from inside for
intruder protection. Replace playground bench.
RESPONSE: Currently the Willows Unified School District provides our
site with a foam rubber device, for each classroom, manufactured and
designed to allow access in and out of the classrooms while the door remains
locked at all times. If an ALERT is activated, the device is pulled out from
the inside, and the door automatically locks shut.
The District’s Safety Committee and Site Administration pursues and